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

Charging Mechanics in Past TW and how it could help TWW

nonentitynonentity Posts: 176Registered Users
In light of recent discussions, I've been thinking about the topic of cycle charging and how historical Total Wars handled it. If any of you have played older TW games, you know that to get an effective charge, you must give the attack order way in advance. There is a minimum amount of time that is required for the unit to achieve full charge speed and charge bonus (CB). In M2TW for example, this is visually represented when knights switch from their close quarter weapons (swords, maces, etc) to their charging weapons (lances, etc). This older system encourages players to make decisions preemptively when giving the attack order to get the best results as an early attack commitment gives better result than a late one.

In Warhammer, your units charge the moment you give an attack order -- and while they do not reach top speed for the strongest impact -- they still get their full CB. As you already know, CB is added to your WS and MA upon impact. An idea I've seen thrown around is to linearly increase a unit's CB (from 0) when an attack order is given, similar to how CB functions after entering combat (where it linearly decrease to 0 after 10 seconds). My suggestions is
  • For SEM -- takes 5 seconds for it to reach its max CB after the attack order is given, starting from 0, increasing linearly every 0.5 seconds (so +CB/10 every 0.5 s)
  • For other large including cav, monsterous infantry, etc -- takes 2.5 seconds to reach max CB with 0.5 s intervals (so +CB/5 every 0.5 s)
  • For small entities -- take 1 second to reach max CB (+CB/2 every 0.5 s)
With this system, it will take longer to setup effective cycle charging, especially for SEM, as the unit must be pull a sufficient distance away for it to build up momentum and increase CB to reap the full benefits of cycle charging.
«1

Comments

  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,160Registered Users
    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.
  • ZeblaskyZeblasky Posts: 441Registered Users
    edited October 26
    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.
    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,160Registered Users
    edited October 26
    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
  • UberReptilianUberReptilian Posts: 112Registered Users
    inb4 thread turns into Dawi "War of the Beard" debate again.
  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Posts: 900Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,160Registered Users

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
  • another505another505 Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited October 26
    I didnt read everytbing

    But have you seen med 2 cav charges where they annihilate infantry in one go?

    A few things to consider comparing to realistic tw

    Twwh have probably the most powerful range units in any tw series including empire tw

    There are a lot of slow and snares in twwh that never or rarely existed in tw series

  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Posts: 900Registered Users
    edited October 26
    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
    Completely incorrect. Random example; ye olde average Hoplite in Rome 2 had MD 57. Spear Brothers, a midtier Germanic spear unit, had MD 66, and a lot of high-tier infantry had MD in the 50-64 range plus armor of 90 or so. IIRC the berserker-type units also had damage resistance, and some of the activatable general abilities conferred it in an AOE.

    Healing, that's true; no previous game has included healing. But most healing spells are actually more efficient on cavalry, since they have less total HP than infantry units. Healing helps cav more than infantry.

  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,160Registered Users

    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
    Completely incorrect. Random example; ye olde average Hoplite in Rome 2 had MD 57. Spear Brothers, a midtier Germanic spear unit, had MD 66, and a lot of high-tier infantry had MD in the 50-64 range plus armor of 90 or so. IIRC the berserker-type units also had damage resistance, and some of the activatable general abilities conferred it in an AOE.

    Healing, that's true; no previous game has included healing. But most healing spells are actually more efficient on cavalry, since they have less total HP than infantry units. Healing helps cav more than infantry.

    cavalry typically has lower stats than elite infantry, as such healing cavalry can be less efficient when you lose models rapidly. Ask anyone what they would rather heal cap, Dragon Princes or Phoenix Guard, I'm sure most will tell you Phoenix Guard (cost is same).

    About your example, I was sure you would have found exceptions. Needless to say Rome 2 is a different game with different balancing. I suggest you consider what @another505 says, if cavalry and monsters get any weaker in this game all you will see is infantry + archer + artillery builds which are very, very boring.

    Cavalry is not oppressive currently, there is exactly 0 exceptions to this rule.

    Monsters, some are oppressive, but this is due to too generous statlines and/or too strong animations (Tomb Scorpions and Arachnarok RoR to name 2).
  • nonentitynonentity Posts: 176Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
    Infantry are the weakest unit type in the game and only serves as meat shields in right now. Seriously, everything beats infantry: cav, chariots, missiles, artillery, monsterous infantry/cav, SEM, wind/vortex abilities and spells, etc.. Cav will always have the advantage in mobility and high burst damage -- these two things by itself counters slow heavy infantry.

    This mechanic will not make cycle charging bad or infantry overpowered -- only that it will take longer to setup effective cycle charges. It's not going to flip the meta on its head -- you just have to give your attack orders a few seconds ahead of time (which most people do anyways) -- that's all.
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,160Registered Users
    edited October 26
    nonentity said:


    Infantry are the weakest unit type in the game and only serves as meat shields in right now. Seriously, everything beats infantry: cav, chariots, missiles, artillery, monsterous infantry/cav, SEM, wind/vortex abilities and spells, etc.. Cav will always have the advantage in mobility and high burst damage -- these two things by itself counters slow heavy infantry.

    this is blatant misinformation as shown by several high-level players utilizing infantry.

    Even if it was true, Phoenix Guard boxes, Ironbreaker defensive lines, a core of 5 Greatswords, an army of Chosen shouldn't be the go-to strategy because there is no strategy in 2 infantry lines clashing with each other as well as no micro required.

    The units I mention are still viable and still able to win games, for example, a few months ago as a non-exhaustive example there was a game HE vs DE where Mukip brought something like:

    - 3 Phoenix Guards
    - 2 Sisters of Avelorn

    and the rest a bunch of other supporting units such as Spearmen and 1-2 cavalry units.

    His opponent brought a hybrid army with a few Cold One Knights, a Bolt Thrower and lost to his all-infantry army. Furthermore I'm fairly certain had Mukip gone with the standard Dragon Prince spam he probably would have lost to Soul Stealers, Spearmen and Cold One Knights overwhelming him so you're totally wrong about the fact that games are always cav vs cav because for example in HE vs DE the High Elves can pull out a nasty surprise made mostly of infantry which happens to hard counter the full cav DE army.
  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Posts: 900Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
    Completely incorrect. Random example; ye olde average Hoplite in Rome 2 had MD 57. Spear Brothers, a midtier Germanic spear unit, had MD 66, and a lot of high-tier infantry had MD in the 50-64 range plus armor of 90 or so. IIRC the berserker-type units also had damage resistance, and some of the activatable general abilities conferred it in an AOE.

    Healing, that's true; no previous game has included healing. But most healing spells are actually more efficient on cavalry, since they have less total HP than infantry units. Healing helps cav more than infantry.

    cavalry typically has lower stats than elite infantry, as such healing cavalry can be less efficient when you lose models rapidly. Ask anyone what they would rather heal cap, Dragon Princes or Phoenix Guard, I'm sure most will tell you Phoenix Guard (cost is same).

    About your example, I was sure you would have found exceptions. Needless to say Rome 2 is a different game with different balancing. I suggest you consider what @another505 says, if cavalry and monsters get any weaker in this game all you will see is infantry + archer + artillery builds which are very, very boring.

    Cavalry is not oppressive currently, there is exactly 0 exceptions to this rule.

    Monsters, some are oppressive, but this is due to too generous statlines and/or too strong animations (Tomb Scorpions and Arachnarok RoR to name 2).
    I agree with most of your individual points (with caveats, of course), but they simply don't lead to your conclusion.

    Cav has lower stats than elite infantry, sure; except for speed and CB, and high speed + high CB + rapid cycle-charging means that actually, MA and WS are both massively higher than infantry at pretty much all times. If a unit of Empire Knights charges into infantry and fights for 10 seconds before cycling out, both MA and WS average 50 or more. Their EFFECTIVE stats are, therefore, incredibly high.

    I would 100% rather heal cap Dragon Princes in most situations, simply because Phoenix Guard can't pick their fights and Dragon Princes can.

    You're completely right, Rome 2 is a very different game with different balancing; specifically, it's a game that's much less friendly to cavalry, and yet cavalry get a ton of play. The current state of balance in Warhammer 2 is not mandatory, and shifting the meta slightly away from heavy cav and monster play won't destroy the game.


    This is not to say, of course, that ALL cavalry are incredibly strong; lots of cav are fairly weak for their price. Boar Boyz, for example. Certainly, if charge mechanics were changed a lot of stats would also need to be altered.

    Honestly, though? If I had my way I would just alter the way impacts work - that is, tone them down a LOT. Charges should not be hurling infantry models 30 yards away, it's not only ridiculous-looking but it also changed balance a lot by allowing cavalry to charge through infantry units after scattering them across the entire **** battlefield. If that didn't happen, cav counterplay would instantly be quite a bit better.


  • nonentitynonentity Posts: 176Registered Users
    edited October 26
    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
    Cav will get their full CB if you make the effort to get a clean charge by setup it up properly.
    Post edited by nonentity on
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 5,160Registered Users
    edited October 26

    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Green0 said:

    Zeblasky said:

    May be just 4 seconds for SEM, but otherwise that's actually seems like a good idea. Could make counter charging too effective though, so gotta brainstrom it here.

    Green0 said:

    cavalry and SEMs would need stats buffs to offset these huge nerfs because after the nerfs you propose nobody would play SEMs and cav anymore.

    No, they really wouldn't. It only eliminates ping pong syndrome and baiting spears out of position. And even then only partially, as impact damage is not going anywhere.

    the issue is that this apparently innocuous suggestion is as always directed toward creating winners and losers. And coincidentally the "winners" in this proposal are always factions and builds that play defensively and require minimal effort and micro to win.

    Totally against a game where a person with good micro gets "outskilled" by a bunch of spears in box formation.

    And I mean, it's not like camping a defensive position with a bunch of spears is not viable currently, many factions do it, often even those that can play in a different way, such as Empire, so I really don't see where this complaint of nerfing monsters and cav is coming from.
    Ok so, why did previous TW games where charges worked in this way *not* turn into boxy camp-fests?

    In Empire TW cavalry was I think the weakest it's ever been, and could be defeated literally by clicking a button; most infantry had guns that could cut down cavalry on the charge, any infantry unit in Square formation was basically immune to cavalry AND outright reflected charge damage, and artillery could **** up a cav unit with 2-3 hits or one volley of canister. Still, any competitive MP army contained at least a couple of cav units.

    In Medieval 2 cavalry was powerful, but required a LOT of time and distance to get its charge bonus. A unit of knights had to charge from at least 100 meters away or so to get the bonus, and often you had to completely reform after a charge - as in, pull back and let every model move back into their original formation - before they would take their lances out again. Still, cavalry was absolutely dominant over infantry.

    In Rome 2 half the infantry in the game had javelins with massive hidden BvL and could delete a charging cav unit before impact. Competitive armies still typically included plenty of cavalry.

    I don't think I even need to mention Attila; in that game cavalry worked pretty similarly to how it does in Warhammer, and as a consequence was completely dominant.



    Now obviously a lot of mechanics have changed, but IMO the cavalry/infantry balance in Warhammer is tilted almost as far as it ever has been; cav in Attila was stronger than in Warhammer, but not by much. The mobility and flexibility of cavalry units is immense; the 'good' cavalry units can cycle-charge infantry basically forever and receive little or no damage in return, just because of how impact mechanics in Warhammer work. Fundamentally, if one player has only a unit of halberds and the other player has only a unit of heavy cavalry - the halberds ought to win. That's what makes sense, and that's how it has always been. But that's not how TWW works, because all of the infantry traits that deter cavalry - charge defense, bracing, formations - either have been removed or have been altered to not actually function.

    Basically: your doom scenario is completely unrealistic. Cavalry in TW has been just fine in much less cav-friendly environments all throughout the series' lifetime; it will be absolutely fine, and anybody who dropped cav and monsters from their army lists just because they could no longer endlessly ping-pong with no consequences would only have to watch their win rate plummet for a few days before they learned better.

    I'd assume because previous iterations of the game didn't feature healing, physical resistance and infantry units with 65+ MD.
    Completely incorrect. Random example; ye olde average Hoplite in Rome 2 had MD 57. Spear Brothers, a midtier Germanic spear unit, had MD 66, and a lot of high-tier infantry had MD in the 50-64 range plus armor of 90 or so. IIRC the berserker-type units also had damage resistance, and some of the activatable general abilities conferred it in an AOE.

    Healing, that's true; no previous game has included healing. But most healing spells are actually more efficient on cavalry, since they have less total HP than infantry units. Healing helps cav more than infantry.

    cavalry typically has lower stats than elite infantry, as such healing cavalry can be less efficient when you lose models rapidly. Ask anyone what they would rather heal cap, Dragon Princes or Phoenix Guard, I'm sure most will tell you Phoenix Guard (cost is same).

    About your example, I was sure you would have found exceptions. Needless to say Rome 2 is a different game with different balancing. I suggest you consider what @another505 says, if cavalry and monsters get any weaker in this game all you will see is infantry + archer + artillery builds which are very, very boring.

    Cavalry is not oppressive currently, there is exactly 0 exceptions to this rule.

    Monsters, some are oppressive, but this is due to too generous statlines and/or too strong animations (Tomb Scorpions and Arachnarok RoR to name 2).
    I agree with most of your individual points (with caveats, of course), but they simply don't lead to your conclusion.

    Cav has lower stats than elite infantry, sure; except for speed and CB, and high speed + high CB + rapid cycle-charging means that actually, MA and WS are both massively higher than infantry at pretty much all times. If a unit of Empire Knights charges into infantry and fights for 10 seconds before cycling out, both MA and WS average 50 or more. Their EFFECTIVE stats are, therefore, incredibly high.

    I would 100% rather heal cap Dragon Princes in most situations, simply because Phoenix Guard can't pick their fights and Dragon Princes can.

    You're completely right, Rome 2 is a very different game with different balancing; specifically, it's a game that's much less friendly to cavalry, and yet cavalry get a ton of play. The current state of balance in Warhammer 2 is not mandatory, and shifting the meta slightly away from heavy cav and monster play won't destroy the game.


    This is not to say, of course, that ALL cavalry are incredibly strong; lots of cav are fairly weak for their price. Boar Boyz, for example. Certainly, if charge mechanics were changed a lot of stats would also need to be altered.

    Honestly, though? If I had my way I would just alter the way impacts work - that is, tone them down a LOT. Charges should not be hurling infantry models 30 yards away, it's not only ridiculous-looking but it also changed balance a lot by allowing cavalry to charge through infantry units after scattering them across the entire **** battlefield. If that didn't happen, cav counterplay would instantly be quite a bit better.


    I agree that hurling models too far away/models taking too long to stand up is an issue. However so it is annoying when a monster charges a footlord and this footlord is sent flying without taking damage.

    These mechanics need to be looked into, but the bottom line is that I don't see cavalry and most monsters as overperforming and probably most "good players" agree with this. We can go over selected monsters and debate if they're too strong but let me ask you:

    - is a Hydra too strong for you?

    - what about a Sun Dragon?

    - is an Arachnarok (regular one, not RoR) too strong?

    If the answer to these is sometimes yes, sometimes no, then clearly there is some combination of stats that makes monsters too abusive, and it's not the broad category of monsters that is too abusive.

    Likewise for cav, the myth that you can endlessly cycle charge infantry is, well, a myth. Try cycle charging Black Guards with Dragon Princes vs another player, I doubt you'll even manage to kill the whole unit.

    Likewise I am not sure why you, and many others, are so upset that a unit like "Phoenix Guard" or "Norgrimling Ironbreakers" is unable to pick their fights. First of all, since I know a lot of people (maybe including you) love realism, a provocative question: was it any different IRL? IRL, infantry also had to wait for cavalry to charge and couldn't "pick their fights".

    About charge bracing: do you know that until, like... the 16th century, cavalry charges "had no counterplay" IRL? It's not as easy as holding a pike toward a horse, horses were trained and you need to have A LOT of courage to not run away from a cavalry formation charging you. You also need more technique than you would think as well as staying in a tightly packed formation to distribute the impact as much as possible. It's really not as easy as "hey guys, let's brace!". And even if you did brace, it would often still involve pain and deaths in your regiment so yeah...

    tl;dr: people who want infantry to be any stronger than it currently is would like cavalry to surrender its mobility AND impact and be relegated only to the role of mobility, i.e. sit there pretty and do nothing.

    Incidentally, IRL too people wrapped their heads around how to counter cavalry for centuries... e.g. by camping a swamp, or setting up a formation next to a forest, or on top of a hill. Defensive measures such as palisades and spikes also were used. This is just to say that... well, cavalry was strong IRL too so I am not sure why exactly people are upset that it's a late-game win condition (sometimes!) in this game when it literally worked exactly the same way IRL and maybe IRL cavalry was even yet more potent (vs your tattered spears, for example, IRL cavalry would have a field day whereas in this game you still have a chance).
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Posts: 4,105Registered Users
    Ok time to take off the rose tinted glasses for some of us here. Rome 2 and Attila were atrociously balanced and frankly nothing should be brought to bear for this argument from those games. (Also the reason Attila had insanely good cav was quite literally because of a single unit called tagmata cav, and not much else).

    As for medieval 2, cav in that game was frankly overtuned. Battles were generally very repetitive because cav dominated every aspect of that game. The reason the cav had to warm up before a charge was likely because if they could charge instantly like they can now, NOTHING would be able to stop them, barring the elite of the elite infantry Spears / halberds.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,697Registered Users
    Infantry may be over all weaker but they are also over all cheaper. I don't agree that infantry is over all cost inefficient. Infantry is strong, just not autonomous. Infantry has a weakness to mass.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Posts: 916Registered Users
    My favorite part is that cav has been relevant in every total war but if someone suggests something as basic as charge reflect (a staple of literally every total war game) the same subsection of the forum comes out with their doomsaying arguments, that the world would only be an infantry ball fest from now on.

    Its almost like, using the power of our brains, we could think of ways that cavalry could be compensated: like with charge buffs, or potentially overturned units could be nerfed.
  • ReymReym Posts: 477Registered Users
    Empire/Napoleon TW wern't box fest because of 1) they were no point in making a box (generally a noob box want to protects the killing power like ar it's center monk archers in shogun 2 or benefit from the fact that its walsl got the best frontal engagement like phanlanx in let let say Rome 1. 2) OPlight infantry and artillery would rekt that box.

    Medival 2 cav couldn't cycle charge indeed but even if it could have it probably would do it much as one charge would rout an infantry unit if not destroy it completly in 5 seconds (including the contact).

    Now eveything is kinda tankier. Most infantry wont be wipe out by a single charge from cavalry and cavalry wont impal itself on halberds in 5 sec of melee with an halberd unit. At the end of the day while it is at least as effective as before it seems that cavalry (and even SE cycle charging) require at least a bit more micro by having the ability to cycle charge.

    It's not like I don't want it to eventually change but I wanted to remind what cavalry was probably equally if not more bonker in a good amont of historical TW.
    But is talking about what is appropriate to talk about in this thread appropriate to be talked about in this thread ?
  • BlissBliss Posts: 519Registered Users
    edited October 26
    About realism, infantry is not too weak vs cav, it's the contrary, it's just that cavalry was much rarer, aswell as ranged units were much more potent but rarer aswell. A single well placed arrow/bullet would kill anybody while it's absolutely (except for lords/heroes/monster missile units) impossible in this game due to damage/hp ratios. For instance, it was absolutely impossible to charge frontly a gun unit before they fired (basic survival instinct, no one was able to do that even if the order was given).
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,622Registered Users
    Cukie251 said:

    My favorite part is that cav has been relevant in every total war but if someone suggests something as basic as charge reflect (a staple of literally every total war game) the same subsection of the forum comes out with their doomsaying arguments, that the world would only be an infantry ball fest from now on.

    Its almost like, using the power of our brains, we could think of ways that cavalry could be compensated: like with charge buffs, or potentially overturned units could be nerfed.

    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod. It's also not like infantry and artillery already have plenty of weaknesses and so making monsters and cav absolute hardcounters to them is neither needed nor desirable.

  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 432Registered Users
    in all these threads a lot of people keep assuming that toning down cycle charging means toning down heavy cav and SEM, with some people in favor and some against. But it doesn't have to. You could aim for much more brutal charges from chaos knights that evaporate any low tier infantry in a single charge, while making them worse at cycle charging.
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Posts: 1,356Registered Users


    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod.

    Maybe because all turtling up quite heavy with current SEMs and cavalry? Play VC for example. You most common enemy army builds are: LZD=blob of TGs with some SEMs and Itza. Dwarf=turtle. DE=turtle. HE=turtle. WE=Air abuse or Tree blob. Empire=turtle.

    If such or similar changes would be implemented. Missiles need huge damage nerf. They are too effective now vs SEMs and cavalry.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,697Registered Users

    in all these threads a lot of people keep assuming that toning down cycle charging means toning down heavy cav and SEM, with some people in favor and some against. But it doesn't have to. You could aim for much more brutal charges from chaos knights that evaporate any low tier infantry in a single charge, while making them worse at cycle charging.

    Well, that stems from that the reason these people keep suggesting nerfs for cav and sems is that they think they are too strong and "counters infinite amount of infantry", which they obviously don't.

    Completely changing the charge mechanics would have a big effect on the balance of both the units themselves and on faction balance. Even if you assume compensation, which they don't, cav would become stronger vs factions that lack tools to either wear them down from range or lacking chaff to soak the charge. I mean it would completely rewrite the value of all shock cav, not to mention chaff summons or skaven slaves/peasants. It would become extremely easy to catch cav in a bad engagement.
    Cukie251 said:

    My favorite part is that cav has been relevant in every total war but if someone suggests something as basic as charge reflect (a staple of literally every total war game) the same subsection of the forum comes out with their doomsaying arguments, that the world would only be an infantry ball fest from now on.

    Its almost like, using the power of our brains, we could think of ways that cavalry could be compensated: like with charge buffs, or potentially overturned units could be nerfed.

    As for this iirc for these games the cb was not negated by charge defense, right? I only played these games very casually, but it would just be a more brutal design. The current implementation makes both cav and spears more tanky.

    That said it can't really be compared. Cav are generally high value and in twwh there are so many additional ways to counter cav and reduce that value in the form of high velocity artillery, ap skirmishers, direct magic damage of which some are long range model killing spells, abundance of snares and slows, abundance of mass and also fast sems. It's not that easy to get your value back from elite cav, you will depend on your own support as well as dodging cannon balls.

    Anti large infantry is a very efficient deterrent and area denial around other tools that kill the cav. IMO this balance is in a good spot, it's not too hard to counter cav and it's not too hard to get value from your cav.

    Some factions can struggle a bit vs large amounts of cav, and ironically that's WE and HE to a large extent and I defend the cav. :)
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,622Registered Users
    tank3487 said:


    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod.

    Maybe because all turtling up quite heavy with current SEMs and cavalry? Play VC for example. You most common enemy army builds are: LZD=blob of TGs with some SEMs and Itza. Dwarf=turtle. DE=turtle. HE=turtle. WE=Air abuse or Tree blob. Empire=turtle.

    If such or similar changes would be implemented. Missiles need huge damage nerf. They are too effective now vs SEMs and cavalry.
    With the hyper-agile SEMs and cavalry, you actually need to turtle up MORE than if they weren't so ballerina-like since otherwise they can flank charge at will. Thanks for supporting my point.

    So stiffening them up a bit would actually improve the game even more.

  • another505another505 Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited October 26
    Cukie251 said:

    My favorite part is that cav has been relevant in every total war but if someone suggests something as basic as charge reflect (a staple of literally every total war game) the same subsection of the forum comes out with their doomsaying arguments, that the world would only be an infantry ball fest from now on.

    Its almost like, using the power of our brains, we could think of ways that cavalry could be compensated: like with charge buffs, or potentially overturned units could be nerfed.

    My problem with charge reflection is that bottom tier like skaven spear shouldnt have any or little to nothing. But high tier like phoenix guard will reflect 100 percent. So is the implementation that needs to be tuned instead of slapping every anti large with perfect charge reflection. And a slight 5-10% cb buff to cavs. The buff number dependent on the unit and roster itself.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    I really dislike the ridicolus knockback and the cav models getting stuck in the units;
    That means they will get dragged down eventually, which is very annoying.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 3,229Registered Users
    tank3487 said:


    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod.

    Maybe because all turtling up quite heavy with current SEMs and cavalry? Play VC for example. You most common enemy army builds are: LZD=blob of TGs with some SEMs and Itza. Dwarf=turtle. DE=turtle. HE=turtle. WE=Air abuse or Tree blob. Empire=turtle.

    If such or similar changes would be implemented. Missiles need huge damage nerf. They are too effective now vs SEMs and cavalry.
    If missiles were too effective vs cav and monsters, then Wood Elves would counter Bretonnia, not the other way around.
  • another505another505 Posts: 992Registered Users

    tank3487 said:


    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod.

    Maybe because all turtling up quite heavy with current SEMs and cavalry? Play VC for example. You most common enemy army builds are: LZD=blob of TGs with some SEMs and Itza. Dwarf=turtle. DE=turtle. HE=turtle. WE=Air abuse or Tree blob. Empire=turtle.

    If such or similar changes would be implemented. Missiles need huge damage nerf. They are too effective now vs SEMs and cavalry.
    If missiles were too effective vs cav and monsters, then Wood Elves would counter Bretonnia, not the other way around.
    Is not as simple as that
    you can see dwarves counter bretonnia hard
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Posts: 4,105Registered Users

    tank3487 said:


    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod.

    Maybe because all turtling up quite heavy with current SEMs and cavalry? Play VC for example. You most common enemy army builds are: LZD=blob of TGs with some SEMs and Itza. Dwarf=turtle. DE=turtle. HE=turtle. WE=Air abuse or Tree blob. Empire=turtle.

    If such or similar changes would be implemented. Missiles need huge damage nerf. They are too effective now vs SEMs and cavalry.
    If missiles were too effective vs cav and monsters, then Wood Elves would counter Bretonnia, not the other way around.
    I thought it was because of Grail knights vs wild riders ....
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 3,229Registered Users

    tank3487 said:


    I also like how making monsters and cavalry less convenient to use would somehow lead to everyone just turtling up instead of, you know, having to use monsters and cavalry now more carefully and precise instead of as a braindead ramrod.

    Maybe because all turtling up quite heavy with current SEMs and cavalry? Play VC for example. You most common enemy army builds are: LZD=blob of TGs with some SEMs and Itza. Dwarf=turtle. DE=turtle. HE=turtle. WE=Air abuse or Tree blob. Empire=turtle.

    If such or similar changes would be implemented. Missiles need huge damage nerf. They are too effective now vs SEMs and cavalry.
    If missiles were too effective vs cav and monsters, then Wood Elves would counter Bretonnia, not the other way around.
    Is not as simple as that
    you can see dwarves counter bretonnia hard
    I don't really agree with that. I find that both sides can take it.
Sign In or Register to comment.