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

Changing the hyper-mobile meta of Warhammer

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaPosts: 2,247Registered Users
The meta in Warhammer has wound up in a state where the value of mobility has become blown all out of bounds; with far too many games being decided by dodging and cycle charging.

This meta has a deterimental impact on both the performance of non highly mobile units (such as foot archers) and on highly mobile units themselves, whose power gets inflated all out of proportion by their ability to dodge; such as for example making the skirmish ability seem OP on light cavalry.

In my opinion, this needs to change for the long term health of the game, in order to prevent the game from devolving into a Starcraft style click fest.

Here are my suggestions for making the meta of the game less dependent on hyper mobility and constant repositioning:-
1. Make formation depth increase unit stickiness to make it harder for highly mobile units to simply jump out of any formation that they rush headlong into. This would reduce the monster cycle charging somewhat.
2. (Alternative to 1): Make dense formations and squares of anti large units (deeper than say 6-8 ranks) reflect a portion of charge damage from large units when braced and facing them.
3. Give all infantry units special formations such as squares and schiltrons. This would allow infantry (especially anti large infantry) to act as a greater deterrent to attacks by highly mobile units.
4. Increase the effects of depletion of stamina; especially the effects to speed, melee attack and charge bonus (I would suggest that an exhausted state lead to charge bonus and melee attack being only 40% of their original value).
5. Significantly increase the stamina depletion caused by running (perhaps make it just below the depletion caused by being in combat); this would discourage the tendency to simply charge all your units everywhere. Maybe slightly increase the walking speed of cavalry and monsters to compensate.

To close the gap between the performance of infantry and mounted ranged units:-
1. Increase the size of ranged infantry units across the board. This would allow ranged infantry to act as a greater deterrent to highly mobile units by allowing them to saturate areas with projectiles and by dramatically increasing their ability to output damage against such units as light cavalry that seem to be undeterred by the presence of ranged infantry counter-fire.
«13

Comments

  • ystyst Posts: 5,472Registered Users
    1. I dont see the whole point of this. Then uve to add mass on monsters so they can break off from them.

    2. Same as above

    3. Warhammer - Throne of bretonnia has that, they also removed all monsters, flyers, spells from game, players rated them as the best warhammer game to date

    4. Lol r u even listening to urself. Skirmish was nice, now u want to make them godmode?

    5. So.... u want to have an even harder time chasing stuffs?

    1. Im not sure if any1 is interested in seeing 100 waywatchers per unit, or 35 irondrakes per regiment. But im definitely interested in playing with 120 thunderers or 150 rifleman
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 999Registered Users
    While I agree that high mobility can be frustrating to play against (especially if you have none of your own), you also have to consider that high mobility units are the most fun to play with as well. So having the game degenerate to a brawl faster or more often seems bad to me. I do think however that there should be something to combat mobile monsters more effectively if possible. Maybe make explosion spells (and maybe other triggers) apply a short stun (like the giant fall animation) could work.
  • ystyst Posts: 5,472Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    They simply refuse to counter them.

    Jobs where u need $1500 demis but some cheapskates told their $300 spear to “get the job done”.

    Spears and such r normally used fo fight things like rat orges, trolls, giants etc where u can engage them.

    Using them against things like dragons, khem sphix etc, truly deserves to get rekt.

    1 shag alone costs more than 6x regiment of spears
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 4,337Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    1 generally speaking I can agree with a very very minor buff to unit stickiness for spears/halberds. This needs not be huge since monsters generally speaking have already low combat stats in prolonged melee when you account for their larger model size that allows something like 20 spearmen to attack at once. Regarding cavalry, I think that currently cavalry gets punished adequately for charging into halberds as long as it's roughly from the front (so that you don't get the big MD debuff for rolling to hit from the rear). In my opinion, there are only 3-4 problematic cav units and those are Cold One Knights (surprisingly effective as long as they don't rampage), Demis, Grail Knights (for me personally this is the worst offender because they have high armor, physical resistance and lance formation which all stack into an almost unbearable charge even for dedicated units), perhaps Dragon Princes (they're OP but less so than GK). You also have to consider that these are the most elite cav units in the game though, if they did nothing what would be the point of spending 1500+ gold on them.

    2 potentially a good idea but it won't solve the core issue that cav is often able to outflank a 30ish speed Halberd unit regardless. It is very hard to brace vs a charge if the player controlling the cav unit is experienced.

    3 I don't really have an opinion on this tbh

    4 this bonus is too harsh and would make exhausted units useless. I get that your idea is to nerf cav/monsters, but by removing 60% of their stats, you remove 60% of their effectiveness (or more). After 1-2 charges, Demi Knights would turn into Goblin Wolf Riders quite literally. Also notice that fighting in melee consumes A LOT of stamina so after even a medium engagement (let's say DP vs 1 unit of Orc Boyz) you are in the very best scenario Winded/Tired (the greater of the 2, don't remember which one it is), 1 step away from red stamina status.

    5) this would make artillery and archers overpowered and factions like VC would suffer greatly. The whole game would need to be rebalanced around this

    Generally, I see some Ninjahund philosophy behind this, in the sense of "missinle cav is broken/boring, cycle charging is ridiculous and plz don't bring too many archers either". Meanwhile he picks Chaos/Greenskins and expects his opponent to fight him in melee.

    Different factions have different strengths, melee line rush isn't the only or most valuable way of playing. I bring balanced armies most of the times and I manage to win still. Infantry can be strong in the right circumstances. I'll admit units like Phoenix/Temple/Black Guard are a bit too expensive, not because they do bad damage but because they suffer from low mobility. Regardless, when they do hit, they hit relatively hard. But you can't buff them without making them unloreful. What would you want, 50 speed Phoenix Guard? A Temple Guard with ranged AP attacks? Sadly this is what using Halberdiers means. Maybe the more elite Halberdiers could use a very gentle (-50/-100 max) cost reduction to see if they become overpowered from that point.
    Post edited by Green0 on
  • BjornBjorn Posts: 111Registered Users
    I agree with the addition of formations, but not so much as for the benefit of paragraph 1
    Formations will add to the game of depth that it deserves,its bad to know that they will never add them
    Formations will make each race even more unique
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 407Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    nerfing cycle charging cavalry would require first the solid demonstration that most factions suffer too much from it. If only a reduced number of factions have an issue (cough*elves*cough) then it's a healthier reflex to look at said factions than nerfing all cav. What do these factions lack?

    an interesting comparison to make is comparing elite elf halberds with giant slayers. Halberds: lowish damage, high MD, win their fight through sustained damage, while giant slayers are a spike damage dissuasion with little sustain (low models and armor).

    I think there is a word never used in TWW discussions but is all over the place in other games.

    counter-initiation.

    The way you counter a charge is counter-initiation. A good counter-initiator is bad as receiving the brunt of the charge but, as a response move, can deal huge amounts of damage in little time. Any control tool like nets helps but you still need spike damage to exploit the window of opportunity.

    Halberds in this game are not counter initiators and shouldn't be expected to be. WE and HE maybe just lack counter-initiation, fragile squads that deal huge amount of damage like Giant Slayers. I think speardancers should look more like giant slayers instead of almost frontline units, more spike damage (and poison), less models. HE really don't have such squads, although a dragon can be a good counter-initiator if charging through it's own spears.

    Another issue specific to countering cavalry (not monsters) is that players unexplainably refuse to use spells like pit of shades or vortices against elite cav.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 407Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    Side-comment: I woulnd't mind heavily reworking cavalry with: losing vigor faster when charging, but having more devastating charges like they had in 1st game and previous total war. Now if an elite cavalry charge only deals 20% damage to regular sword infantry, all you can do with them is cycle charging. I would agree about punishing more cycle charging through huge vigor loss, but a chaos knights regiment should evaporate and empire swordsman squad on the charge without even realizing their presence.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 407Registered Users
    edited July 2018
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,247Registered Users
    @yst to borrow your own analogy; if you're such a fan of winning through cost, go play Risk. If you make stupid plays with your expensive monsters, then it's pretty much expected that they won't pay for themselves; actually use those monsters as part of a coherent combined arms tactical play and they'll become invaluable in achieving victory. Monsters would still remain devastatingly effective, but they would require more thought put into their use and they wouldn't be able to just run everywhere (there is the option to walk).

    @Green0 quite the contrary, I think that Ninjahund's ideas regarding light cavalry are quite bad. His bias in favour of a melee dominated click fest is pretty bad. However, the whole dodging meta inflates the apparent strength of light cavalry, which means that they seem pretty powerful even when they actually may be pretty bad all in all (such as Outriders, who currently act as cut price mounted handgunners instead of repeater armed specialists, but already seem excessively powerful simply because their speed let's them dodge attacks and their shots are fast enough to be hard to dodge). The speed based meta actually obfuscates the weakness of fast units by making an excessively great virtue of their speed (at the cost of their other attributes).

    I should probably elaborate why and where I got the idea for this from.

    For the hyper mobile meta; it's pretty ludicrous that the mets in a game of tactics has become close to a click fest, with a pretty large emphasis on dodging projectiles. Static formations of troops find themselves at a considerable disadvantage when facing off against mobile monsters and cavalry that can simply be run everywhere while the infantry struggle to respond.

    The problems, as I see them are as follows:-
    1. Infantry is unable to respond to extremely fast cavalry and monsters; bracing and charge defense is useless if, by the time your unit can face them, the enemy has already gotten to your flanks and charged in.
    2. Ranged infantry and artillery in particular are excessively vulnerable, since static infantry can't respond effectively enough to deter attacks by fast units and ranged fire (from any unit) can't do enough damage or even get on target fast enough to actually hurt fast units.
    3. Ranged infantry struggles to counter fast light cavalry. Since their natural counters can't respond effectively, light cavalry pretty much gets free reign over the battlefield, especially since they can largely only be engaged on their terms.


    As for where I got the idea for the solutions and the rationale:-
    1. The idea behind making running cost more stamina is to make it a bad idea to just charge/run your fast units everywhere. This makes it so that fast units can still reposition quickly, but they can't just continuously run circles around the enemy with no consequences; just flaking and charging continuously, without infantry support to tie the enemy down and allow the fast units time to recover would become a bad idea.
    2. The same rationale applies to increasing the penalties for being exhausted. Especially to speed and charge. Charge penalties may be gentler, but speed penalties should be strict to prevent cavalry just being made to run all over without consequence. This would perhaps also help with the whole continuous cycle charging issue and create an interesting dynamic whee charges actually have to be followed up with something rather than just being cycled again and again. Cycle charging would still be effective, but only when supported.
    3. As for the idea for formations and buffs for deeper formations; that came from history. From gaugemela to bruges to the battlefields of the 16th century, the use of deep formations of infantry backed up with ranged support has been a pretty classic tactic for dealing with cavalry; one may refer to the Parthian campaign of Publius Ventidius Bassus to see just how devastatingly effective this tactic was against even the most heavily armoured cavalry, by the time of the 16th century such tactics as actually made the use of heavily armoured Knights obsolete and relegated cavalry to a supporting role. Such tactics however, require that infantry actually be able to deter and counter cavalry; formations such as squares and schiltrons allow infantry to do just that, by allowing themselves to become a significant deterrent to charges by forming up into a square that can quickly respond to a charge from any direction.
    4. As for the effectiveness of ranged units; the factions that lack them or are weak in ranged infantry (such as Beastmen) generally more than make up for it through an abundance of the very thing that overly dominates the meta these days; fast cavalry and monsters. These factions, apart from VC, already dominate the meta and the overall increase to ranged infantry unit sizes (from archers to handgunners) would perhaps only lead to a less lopsided balance which is less dominated by charges and fast movements. The only faction that may actually suffer are the VC and that is because their monsters are supposedly sub par when compared to other factions employing their monster heavy style of warfare.
  • ystyst Posts: 5,472Registered Users
    I can see your love for warhammer, i think ull like my recommendation.

    Ca recently released a new expansion to warhammer, themed throne of brittania. Dont let the fool u, its actually bretonnia vs nosca, many years passed since the chaos war and they r now known as britannia instead of bretonnia.

    All monsters died out, so ya no more monsters! Yay! No more spells too as magic users r being hunted to extinction. No more flying units too.

    I think ull love it, its the best warhammer out there. U can literally spam 19 spears and win, its amazing
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 4,337Registered Users
    I agree with cav being too fast to get hit by missiles. I am in favor of a missile speed buff (particularly for foot archers).

    Regarding everything else, I think it's only Elves that truly suffer from the cycle charging problem so perhaps rather than cav and charging being OP, these factions need tools to deal with cavalry, or just keep this as one of their intrinsic weaknesses.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,247Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    I agree with cav being too fast to get hit by missiles. I am in favor of a missile speed buff (particularly for foot archers).

    Regarding everything else, I think it's only Elves that truly suffer from the cycle charging problem so perhaps rather than cav and charging being OP, these factions need tools to deal with cavalry, or just keep this as one of their intrinsic weaknesses.

    Formations would be a start; better ranged infantry may help as well by allowing them to saturate areas with fire and make skirmish cav dodging a bad idea. More impactful fatigue would make the whole use of cavalry and monsters require more thought and support.

    What the hyper mobile mobile meta does is pervert perceptions regarding the strength of units. Projectile speed and unit speed become attributes that are blown all out of proportion due to the while missile dodging. This creates inflated projections of the strengths of units with these attributes by making them seem far more powerful than they actually are.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 6,943Registered Users
    Give stationary archer/xbows +30% missile speed. All units that are firing on the move lose it, that way stationary missile fire would be much harder to dodge.
  • Elder_BasiliskElder_Basilisk Posts: 361Registered Users
    I think lotus Moon has the right idea. Increasing projectile speed would make missiles much harder to dodge and would make food archers much more effective as a counter to skilled players using missile cav. (Of course, against low to moderate skill players its fine already. Somehow whenever I try to run ellyrian reavers archers around like I see people do on YouTube, they end up getting hit by all the arrows and routing. Missile dodging is a lot harder than it looks).
  • Busa1227Busa1227 Posts: 3,118Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    So, the solution for skirmishers being too strong is giving more buffs for skirmishers?, are you kidding me guys :D .Do you really think that giving more missile speed could help beastmen or norsca? Or does it would maybe make these factions even worse against kiting? Are you aware that dodging is also one of the few tools for some factions to deal with kiting builds?, especially for Chaos, Norsca and BM, factions which are heavily outranged by Elves. God, Its unbeliavabe... I have lost any faith I could have in this forum.

  • Elder_BasiliskElder_Basilisk Posts: 361Registered Users
    Solution to mounted skirmishers being too strong could be to buff foot skirmishers, sure. Foot archers are the generic answer to mounted archers after all.

    Chaos, Norsca, and beastmen are three of the strongest factions in the game at the moment (especially chaos) and all play the mobile skirmish game themselves. They also all have fast armored or shielded (or both) units and access to lore of shadows which can slow enemy units as well as speed up their own units.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 6,943Registered Users
    Busa1227 said:

    So, the solution for skirmishers being too strong is giving more buffs for skirmishers?, are you kidding me guys :D .Do you really think that giving more missile speed could help beastmen or norsca? Or does it would maybe make these factions even worse against kiting? Are you aware that dodging is also one of the few tools for some factions to deal with kiting builds?, especially for Chaos, Norsca and BM, factions which are heavily outranged by Elves. God, Its unbeliavabe... I have lost any faith I could have in this forum.

    How are BM bad vs Kitting in the first place? Only issues i'm having with BM and GS is terror its most certainly not kite from the games i had with them so far.

    Anyway point of my idea is to make normal archers harder to dodge by all units including missile cav, it would help them be picked more often.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,247Registered Users
    Busa1227 said:

    So, the solution for skirmishers being too strong is giving more buffs for skirmishers?, are you kidding me guys :D .Do you really think that giving more missile speed could help beastmen or norsca? Or does it would maybe make these factions even worse against kiting? Are you aware that dodging is also one of the few tools for some factions to deal with kiting builds?, especially for Chaos, Norsca and BM, factions which are heavily outranged by Elves. God, Its unbeliavabe... I have lost any faith I could have in this forum.

    I don't think that skirmishers are too strong; on the contrary, it may very well be argued that they are too weak. Chaos, Beastmen and Norsca, in spite of having rather one sided rosters are somehow dominating the game; what this tells me is that their strengths have been overbuffed, while their weaknesses (ranged and artillery) have failed to keep up. Essentially creating a meta that is dominated by fast hard hitting monsters and the fast cavalry that can get around these monsters. These factions have become overly powerful, requiring little actual tactical thought or planning and instead simply relying on charging all over the place and ganging up on the enemy; one side (namely rush factions) has far too easy a time of it while their enemies struggle against them.

    In fact, i'd say that ranged light cavalry are not the main problem; their presence is in fact a response to the main problem of highly mobile shock units and monsters that simply smash through more stationary opposition, essentially forcing the use of units that can effectively dodge them, since these factions can simply charge headlong into oncoming fire from ranged infantry and still come out the other side in a fit condition to smash through or get around the enemy infantry and rip apart their ranged units before their enemies can so much as react.

    Believe it or not, Total War isn't; let's have Norsca and Chaos rush and stomp all over the opposition. Rushing as a tactic is far too common and easy and in severe need of heavy nerfs, while other units (such as ranged, normal infantry and artillery) are in severe need of buffs.

    Solution to mounted skirmishers being too strong could be to buff foot skirmishers, sure. Foot archers are the generic answer to mounted archers after all.

    Chaos, Norsca, and beastmen are three of the strongest factions in the game at the moment (especially chaos) and all play the mobile skirmish game themselves. They also all have fast armored or shielded (or both) units and access to lore of shadows which can slow enemy units as well as speed up their own units.

    Problem isn't just with mounted skirmishers; their overuse and inflated perceptions of power are a symptom of the problems with the meta of the game being excessively dominated by fast rushes. The meta revolving around fast rushes and rapid counterpicking needs to change as a whole; this involves making rushing less strong, making it's counters stronger and making tactics involving infantry deterrents more effective. This would automatically solve the issue of excessive mounted skirmishers by making their use less mandatory and deflating their inflated perceived power (which really just stems from being able to survive against the dominant rush by running away).
  • Busa1227Busa1227 Posts: 3,118Registered Users
    edited July 2018

    Busa1227 said:

    So, the solution for skirmishers being too strong is giving more buffs for skirmishers?, are you kidding me guys :D .Do you really think that giving more missile speed could help beastmen or norsca? Or does it would maybe make these factions even worse against kiting? Are you aware that dodging is also one of the few tools for some factions to deal with kiting builds?, especially for Chaos, Norsca and BM, factions which are heavily outranged by Elves. God, Its unbeliavabe... I have lost any faith I could have in this forum.

    How are BM bad vs Kitting in the first place? Only issues i'm having with BM and GS is terror its most certainly not kite from the games i had with them so far.

    Anyway point of my idea is to make normal archers harder to dodge by all units including missile cav, it would help them be picked more often.

    Busa1227 said:

    So, the solution for skirmishers being too strong is giving more buffs for skirmishers?, are you kidding me guys :D .Do you really think that giving more missile speed could help beastmen or norsca? Or does it would maybe make these factions even worse against kiting? Are you aware that dodging is also one of the few tools for some factions to deal with kiting builds?, especially for Chaos, Norsca and BM, factions which are heavily outranged by Elves. God, Its unbeliavabe... I have lost any faith I could have in this forum.

    How are BM bad vs Kitting in the first place? Only issues i'm having with BM and GS is terror its most certainly not kite from the games i had with them so far.

    Anyway point of my idea is to make normal archers harder to dodge by all units including missile cav, it would help them be picked more often.
    Of course, I have seen your stream matches today and the only time you played against a good player (Gobbo King), you had to use builds with 11 or more cav+dogs units. Anyway, even with these kinds of builds, BM have still a good chance to get wrecked by factions with good skirmishers/cav. Increasing missile speed could have bad consequences IMO and would bring new issues. I personally rely a lot on dodging to have success in some current hard MUs and same for you, I would like to know how would you be able to win WE vs HE if you are not able anymore to dodge arrows anymore.

    It's pretty simple, CA has a lot of tools to determine if skirmish cav is overperforming or not. If skirmish cav units are overperforming, they should get a nerf and we shouldn't ask for introducing new mechanics changes which could break a lot of things/MUs. On the other hand, if skirmish cav is not overperforming according to CA data/tools, then they should remain exactly as they are now, period.

  • ystyst Posts: 5,472Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    I don't think that skirmishers are too strong; on the contrary, it may very well be argued that they are too weak. Chaos, Beastmen and Norsca, in spite of having rather one sided rosters are somehow dominating the game;

    Yea pretty much agree with the entire essay u have there, games based on asymmetry, as imba or as balance it is, there will be areas that r grey
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Busa1227Busa1227 Posts: 3,118Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    BTW, I strongly disagree with regular archers are UP. Peasant Archers are pretty decisive, HE archers are pretty decisive, LSG are pretty decisive, Darkshards were pretty decisive before people realized that Dark Riders xBows are a better pick, all Dwarfs missile units are pretty decisive, and so on... Even Arrer Boyz are a pretty good pick most of the times and pay for themselves. The only reason because static archers look UP is because units with 360 fire are clearly a much better pick most of the times.

  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 2,959Registered Users
    Although in this case, OP is talking about mobile armies, not strictly about skirmishers.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,182Registered Users
    It's a bit tricky... Strong melee rush of some factions, for example bm or gs, force others, for example he or we, to go mobile because melee rush is strong with waah or summons. But then mobile he or we may actually be so strong that bm or gs have big trouble beating that. Can that circle be closed, or are fully mobile armies simply better than armies using infantry?

    I guess that's what it boils down to. Do we have a full counter pick circle or does it break?

    You guys answer that, I'll sleep now. :wink:
  • PippingtonPippington Posts: 1,911Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    Mobility has been king since WH1 was released, I would like to see better balance between infantry & mobile units but I think this is one of those things that may require a fundamental overhaul of the game engine to fix (i.e. not gonna happen), like making foot lords be able to fight monster lords. With knockback mechanics in WH anything with the mass + speed to cycle charge can essentially stunlock a slower target, so in very crude terms if you don't bring the tools to stop those units (i.e. units with the mass + speed to hold them in place) you are always going to lose in the end. Buffs to infantry formations etc. will probably just make it take longer.

    I'm not saying this is how it should be, just that this is kind of how it is. There are infantry in the game who can threaten cavalry, but it's usually pretty hard to build a whole army out of them, and it puts you in a passive role unless you also have other units with the speed or range to let you dictate where engagements happen. There are basically no infantry in the game who can threaten high-mass, high-speed monsters, unless they are netted or left completely AFK.
    The idea behind making running cost more stamina is to make it a bad idea to just charge/run your fast units everywhere.
    In terms of addressing this specific problem, sure, sounds like a good idea. In general terms, I don't want there to be a ~5 min pre-battle phase in MP where the armies are just very sloowwwwllllly walking towards each other. Imagine how tedious that could get with Dwarf or Chaos infantry lines (perhaps with an opponent who refuses to fast forward because he is manual firing artillery at you as you walk...). Running not being that punishing a vigour penalty is kind of a convenience/quality of life thing for MP.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • ystyst Posts: 5,472Registered Users

    I guess that's what it boils down to. Do we have a full counter pick circle or does it break?

    There will always be weak area for players to make it difficult for their opponent.

    But really its never clear cut. Plenty of times ive wiped brets with cavs simply by bringing 6 cold one knights, i mean ppl claims they r king of cavs doesnt guarantee they never lose in cav fights.

    Even with dwfs lol, given the terrain ive used lobbers to flush them out in the open for squiqs buffet and they r regarded as father of arts.

    Sure chaos r strong in melee, but try fighting 6 greatswords with boris. They r more than happy to trade ur chosens, anything below they will simply cut them down.

    Even with tombkings, ive lost in monster fights, just coz some guy decided to go stalking arachs with plenty of bacon riders and biguns
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,182Registered Users
    @Pippington well put, that describes my impression exactly. In the mus I have struggled the answer has always been to stop bringing any infantry, control the pace and cycle charge ftw. Turns out such builds are very hard to counter as I went from losing nearly every battle to winning almost every battle vs these factions. Sometimes not even having to fight it because the opponent just drops when he see what's coming the next 15 minutes... :neutral:

    I believe there is need for both nerfs and buffs to revitalize such mus though, and possibly more sweeping mechanistic changes will as well even though that threatens the rather good balance we have.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,247Registered Users
    @Pippington @Disposable Hero this is why I think that formations such as squares and schiltrons, combined with more potent ranged units (an increase in numbers would give them better survivability and more firepower) would be a good first step to addressing this.

    A unit in a square or schiltrons can't be flanked or rear charged and is better able to deal with charges, furthermore it's ability to respond quicker in any direction acts as a deterrent towards cavalry just running about.

    A ranged unit in a square can fire in any direction; this allows it to respond to fast units getting around it without wasting time repositioning; combine this with the added numbers and firepower and you have a solid deterrent to fast units that can pose a serious threat to them, especially when combined with infantry to back them up.

    Of course, there's some pretty good counters to this as well. While fast flankers and charges won't be particularly useful, melee infantry will be capable of overwhelming these formations, while ranged units will want to get out of squares to give their fire a wider coverage. Furthermore, these formations would be vulnerable to vortex spells due to their stationary and dense nature. Artillery would also cause great damage to these formations.

    It might not solve the issue, but I think that these steps will most certainly shift the meta to a more interesting, less speed dominated place. Melee specialist infantry and chaff units in particular will, I think, become more important as counters to infantry squares and as meatshields to soak up engaged fire respectively.

    Fast units will still be quite powerful and useful, but their universality will at least be toned down and their use require more thought and backup.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,182Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    @Pippington @Disposable Hero this is why I think that formations such as squares and schiltrons, combined with more potent ranged units (an increase in numbers would give them better survivability and more firepower) would be a good first step to addressing this.

    A unit in a square or schiltrons can't be flanked or rear charged and is better able to deal with charges, furthermore it's ability to respond quicker in any direction acts as a deterrent towards cavalry just running about.

    A ranged unit in a square can fire in any direction; this allows it to respond to fast units getting around it without wasting time repositioning; combine this with the added numbers and firepower and you have a solid deterrent to fast units that can pose a serious threat to them, especially when combined with infantry to back them up.

    Of course, there's some pretty good counters to this as well. While fast flankers and charges won't be particularly useful, melee infantry will be capable of overwhelming these formations, while ranged units will want to get out of squares to give their fire a wider coverage. Furthermore, these formations would be vulnerable to vortex spells due to their stationary and dense nature. Artillery would also cause great damage to these formations.

    It might not solve the issue, but I think that these steps will most certainly shift the meta to a more interesting, less speed dominated place. Melee specialist infantry and chaff units in particular will, I think, become more important as counters to infantry squares and as meatshields to soak up engaged fire respectively.

    Fast units will still be quite powerful and useful, but their universality will at least be toned down and their use require more thought and backup.

    Personally I am not convinced that's the right route, we already have a brace mechanic and I am not sure we need to buff boxing. Maybe it would be useful to see over how quickly the models form up when you turn the formation. We already have the 180 hotkey, perhaps that kind of maneuver should be automatic when dragging a new formation? That would add a kind of agility to units that you pay attention to.

    In any case the problem that infantry has is that it's always passive vs a faster unit. That's how it should be, so something else would be needed for infantry to become more impactful, if that is the correct route for the game. That would eventually spell nerfs to the more mobile units so that they required more support from infantry to kill infantry. Not sure that's the right route either, but might be the only way to shift the Meta. Either that, or add objectives that only infantry can carry out to give them a role apart from the occasional speed bump.
  • Busa1227Busa1227 Posts: 3,118Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    @Pippington While I do agree with your post, I think that this issue is probably easier to fix than we could think. I also do agree about mobility has been king since the game release and it was even worse in WH1. I remember when some top players picked Empire/Bret skirmish+cav builds eventually and simply wreck Greenskins without zero counterplay but for some reason, these builds looked really hard to use and you rarely have to fight 100% mounted armies.

    Now, these builds have been nerfed in WH2 due to most of the units getting 20% HP and some archers getting -1AP damage but mobility is still king and 100% mounted builds are still OP. Plus we have now tons of factions able to use 100% mounted builds effectively and these builds are starting to be relatively common in tournaments/QB. The new pacing of battles has also made this builds easier to play and they are not as micro intensive as they were in WH1, so you don't need to be a great player to use them effectively.

    I have been playing kiting builds these days and getting extremely good results when playing in QB (100% winrate, I can provide screens and replays without problems. I have played just +-10 battles though) but being fair, I got most of the kills with my shock cavalry units. Aside from some skirmish units being too good IMO, the truth is that the real issue is how good the shock cav + skirmishers synergy is. Both kinds of units aren't too OP by themselves but if you mix them they become really cheesy and really good/effective. People could say that cavalry has been overbuffed in the last patch but I have been playing High Elves most of the times and Dragon Princes have only got nerfs in WH2 (they still have more mass than most of other cav units though) and I still remember how weak and useless cavalry felt in the WH2 release but part of the problem was the OP infantry + OP monsters meta which has got considerable nerfs since the WH2 release (some monsters still need nerfs IMO).

    I really don't know how CA could fix this issue without hurting some factions/MUs but most of the changes should be focused in reducing the shock cav + skirmishers synergy. Thanks to skirmishers, shock cav just turns insane because you are able to dictate every engagement without taking many risks when going in melee with your expensive shock cav units. On the other hand, there are some melee factions and some single entity monsters which also need adjustments because the truths is that it's extremely hard to defeat them without using kiting/cycling tactics, for example:

    - Kholek
    - Kroq Gar on carno
    - Greenskins melee builds (Whaag)

    Lastly, I just want to say that only small changes are required IMO and these changes should be distributed between shock cav and skirmishers units while we could also get some fatigue mechanic changes which could improve the current situation.

  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 407Registered Users
    repeating post -.-

    do you all think all factions have trouble with cycle charging or only a few ?

    Because if it's only a few, you risk what happened many times: a general fix to a specific problem won't change anything to the RELATIVE weakness of factions against that problem. Those who have little trouble against mobile builds will become immune, thus reducing game play diversity; while those that now have trouble could still have it. In that case it's better to give more tools to some factions.

    So again, do dwarves or Chaos suffer from melee cavalry? If not, isn't it just because they have proper counter-initiation to punish charges and others (like HE/WE) don't?

    Finally toning down cycle charging would need compensations, like making the first charge more powerful, otherwise a solution to a specific build will affect all other builds in a bad way.

    And maybe just slght nerfs to range cav would suffice for all this issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.