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

Why all TWW2 cavalry units are garbage?

2

Comments

  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,169


    Combine this with the fact that AI morale is generally too high in WH2 (the AI essentially always fights to the death on VH battle difficulty)

    I think this is a bigger issue than people give credit in the campaign and it's not just an AI issue. Beyond the difficulty modifiers there is just an absolute truck-load of +leadership buffs that get picked up over time in the campaign. Lord skills/items, traits, technology, promotions, unique buildings.

    Just Tyrion's leadership auras skills can give any nearby unit +24 leadership. And he can pick up another +5 for whichever unit gets the dedication skill.

    Then add another 10 for promotions...

    Then add another 5-10 from various traits...

    Then add another 5-10 if it's one of the units with a +leadership technology

    Then add difficulty modifiers


    It is insane how many leadership bonuses there are in this game.

  • Sfigatto16Sfigatto16 Registered Users Posts: 273
    Jman5 said:


    Combine this with the fact that AI morale is generally too high in WH2 (the AI essentially always fights to the death on VH battle difficulty)

    I think this is a bigger issue than people give credit in the campaign and it's not just an AI issue. Beyond the difficulty modifiers there is just an absolute truck-load of +leadership buffs that get picked up over time in the campaign. Lord skills/items, traits, technology, promotions, unique buildings.

    Just Tyrion's leadership auras skills can give any nearby unit +24 leadership. And he can pick up another +5 for whichever unit gets the dedication skill.

    Then add another 10 for promotions...

    Then add another 5-10 from various traits...

    Then add another 5-10 if it's one of the units with a +leadership technology

    Then add difficulty modifiers


    It is insane how many leadership bonuses there are in this game.

    Well the best example are the dwarfs, high leadership +nearby units and various buffs by traits, then consider that they fight mainly underway battles against Skaven or GS, a long narrow map where flanking is impossible.
    GS cavalry is just useless....
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited November 2020
    Jman5 said:


    Combine this with the fact that AI morale is generally too high in WH2 (the AI essentially always fights to the death on VH battle difficulty)

    I think this is a bigger issue than people give credit in the campaign and it's not just an AI issue. Beyond the difficulty modifiers there is just an absolute truck-load of +leadership buffs that get picked up over time in the campaign. Lord skills/items, traits, technology, promotions, unique buildings.

    Just Tyrion's leadership auras skills can give any nearby unit +24 leadership. And he can pick up another +5 for whichever unit gets the dedication skill.

    Then add another 10 for promotions...

    Then add another 5-10 from various traits...

    Then add another 5-10 if it's one of the units with a +leadership technology

    Then add difficulty modifiers


    It is insane how many leadership bonuses there are in this game.

    Buffstacking is a huge issue in this game, and that's owed to the terrible pacing of the campaign where you can accumulate all of these buffs way too quickly. If they were space out further apart or *gulp* there were caps on how much you can buff any unit or even more *gulp* stacking buffs would come with a downside like making the buffed units more expensive, then the campaign would flow much better. So if you turned Goblins into midget Chosen, they'd also get to be as pricey as Chosen.
  • MaleAmazonMaleAmazon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 717
    It is insane how many leadership bonuses there are in this game.


    Yeah. I think part of the problem might be that CA could have reasoned that leadership buffs are 'safer' and 'less OP' than actual combat stat buffs. I don´t know that this is true but they seem to like to dole out morale buffs.

    On Legendary/VH, goblins and the like seem to be often "confident" despite their legendary lord being dead, the rest of the army a bloody puddle on the map, and there´s about 14 gobbos left in the unit...

    Most battles do not end until the loser gets the global 'army losses' penalty.

    It is a shame, really.
  • EarthDragonEarthDragon Registered Users Posts: 1,180
    Threads like this are amusing.

    It reveals that most people, even the hardcore nerds, don’t understand what cavalry are and their roll on a battlefield.

    It’s also really hard to effectively implement that, but in the very least......they aren’t “tanks”
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954

    Threads like this are amusing.

    It reveals that most people, even the hardcore nerds, don’t understand what cavalry are and their roll on a battlefield.

    It’s also really hard to effectively implement that, but in the very least......they aren’t “tanks”

    I don't particularly (see: at all) care what their supposed role is.

    I care about the fact that a lot of cav is terrible, and you don't need them in the slightest.
    Kneel

  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    edited November 2020
    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,169

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    In total war, Isn't that supposed to vary depending on the type of cavalry? Shock Cavalry isn't supposed to stick around, but melee cavalry is.
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237

    The reason cavalry (if by cavalry you mean the garden variety kind with many models per unit) is so bad in WH2, especially on higher difficulties, is a combination of AI morale buffs and simply bad stats.

    Monsters that work like cavalry, such as carnosaurs, are quite a lot better than regular many-model cavalry.

    Cavalry in WH2 often rely on their charge stat to cause casualties, since their actual melee stats are pretty mediocre. However, they just don´t cause that many casualties - they just knock units back, units that then get up again and fight the cavalry in melee. Cycle charging is kind of, but not super, useful.

    Combine this with the fact that AI morale is generally too high in WH2 (the AI essentially always fights to the death on VH battle difficulty), the AI gets disproportionate melee buffs, and lastly that units tire in seconds but take forever to get their stamina back, and you get the result that most cavalry is just bad.

    Contrast this with chariots which are generally much more useful, and fulfil very much the same role.

    Cavalry is much better in TW:Attila and 3 Kingdoms, despite them being very similar to WH2. 3K shock cavalry can absolutely melt a unit on a rear charge, and Attila spear cavalry are real killers too.

    In the end, they are different games. WH2 is not a very good strategy game as such, to be honest... it is more about using OP stuff, abuse rules, and exploiting AI idiocy to win.

    Bretonnia cavalry is pretty decent though, perhaps partly because almost all of their top tier cavalry doesn´t tire in combat.

    Except when you wrote about 3K and Attila (which i never played them), i agree with everything you said.

    And also, want to add my view to the "leadership" thing by saying that buffs, while damaging of course cavalry in it's entirety, is not actually the root problem. I mean melee buffs for AI technically are a problem, i don't think anyone can say otherwise, but there's more.

    I've noticed that usually leadership is more like a second hp bar, like 90% of the times, and that's because the big 2 things that damage leadership are not lord dead, or being flanked, but 1) getting outnumbered (aka the joke old as stone of the group of ironbreakers corner camping against skavenslaves spam and routing after 2 seconds) and 2) taking damage (aka why the "second hp bar"). If we want, we can add as third option having the lord dead, but that works only against low tier units that have already been damaged, so we're back at the start, because you still need to deal damage to units.
    Also, army losses. Basically the only way to win a battle is through army losses, and what cause army losses? **** DAMAGE, and how much "overall strength" you have.

    Obviously, someone can say that cavalry in TWW2 don't need to be a leadership breaker and can just be a damage dealer, which is completely right, and actually, that's probably what the devs want from cav, the problem is that they suck at dealing damage. I mean, in my main post i literally explained why each cav unit was garbage FROM A STATS PERSPECTIVE, didn't say **** about leadership, because i was trying to think of the game as a dev would (in this case, a game where leadership is a second hp bar).

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    Sir, i know that, even if the game have a cathegory of cav that rely on melee combat so technically what you wrote only applies to shock cavalry specifically, but still i know that.
    And i know that cav can be good too. If the map permits, you can play with the "aggressive" AI that just run at you mindlessly to pick units separated from the main group and use your speed as an advantage, and it work for the few non-pukey cav units, and probably works even for the garbage cav (by garbage here i don't mean low tier, but actual garbage) units if you do 4v1 against same-tier units.
    But you see, with this logic one can say swordmasters are good units because they chop garbage infantry. That's true, but you see, is like saying a boxer is a good boxer, because he won a match against a 8 year old. I mean, yes, he's not a paraplegic, he can still win a boxing match against a kid, but is just stupid calling him a good boxer, no one sane will do that. Same logic for cav. Yes, they have more tactical flexibility than random chosen unit that can only melee-grind an nothing else, but that doesn't mean they're good (same can be said for units like gyrobombers or deck droppers, or more conventioanl ranged like dwarf's ballista or eshin ranged units outside eshin faction: they're all garbage BECAUSE OF THE **** STATS).
  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    edited November 2020
    Jman5 said:

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    In total war, Isn't that supposed to vary depending on the type of cavalry? Shock Cavalry isn't supposed to stick around, but melee cavalry is.
    Even the "melee cavalry" get overwhelmed unless it's a complete mismatch or they're flanking and being a hammer.
  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    elkapp said:

    The reason cavalry (if by cavalry you mean the garden variety kind with many models per unit) is so bad in WH2, especially on higher difficulties, is a combination of AI morale buffs and simply bad stats.

    Monsters that work like cavalry, such as carnosaurs, are quite a lot better than regular many-model cavalry.

    Cavalry in WH2 often rely on their charge stat to cause casualties, since their actual melee stats are pretty mediocre. However, they just don´t cause that many casualties - they just knock units back, units that then get up again and fight the cavalry in melee. Cycle charging is kind of, but not super, useful.

    Combine this with the fact that AI morale is generally too high in WH2 (the AI essentially always fights to the death on VH battle difficulty), the AI gets disproportionate melee buffs, and lastly that units tire in seconds but take forever to get their stamina back, and you get the result that most cavalry is just bad.

    Contrast this with chariots which are generally much more useful, and fulfil very much the same role.

    Cavalry is much better in TW:Attila and 3 Kingdoms, despite them being very similar to WH2. 3K shock cavalry can absolutely melt a unit on a rear charge, and Attila spear cavalry are real killers too.

    In the end, they are different games. WH2 is not a very good strategy game as such, to be honest... it is more about using OP stuff, abuse rules, and exploiting AI idiocy to win.

    Bretonnia cavalry is pretty decent though, perhaps partly because almost all of their top tier cavalry doesn´t tire in combat.

    Except when you wrote about 3K and Attila (which i never played them), i agree with everything you said.

    And also, want to add my view to the "leadership" thing by saying that buffs, while damaging of course cavalry in it's entirety, is not actually the root problem. I mean melee buffs for AI technically are a problem, i don't think anyone can say otherwise, but there's more.

    I've noticed that usually leadership is more like a second hp bar, like 90% of the times, and that's because the big 2 things that damage leadership are not lord dead, or being flanked, but 1) getting outnumbered (aka the joke old as stone of the group of ironbreakers corner camping against skavenslaves spam and routing after 2 seconds) and 2) taking damage (aka why the "second hp bar"). If we want, we can add as third option having the lord dead, but that works only against low tier units that have already been damaged, so we're back at the start, because you still need to deal damage to units.
    Also, army losses. Basically the only way to win a battle is through army losses, and what cause army losses? **** DAMAGE, and how much "overall strength" you have.

    Obviously, someone can say that cavalry in TWW2 don't need to be a leadership breaker and can just be a damage dealer, which is completely right, and actually, that's probably what the devs want from cav, the problem is that they suck at dealing damage. I mean, in my main post i literally explained why each cav unit was garbage FROM A STATS PERSPECTIVE, didn't say **** about leadership, because i was trying to think of the game as a dev would (in this case, a game where leadership is a second hp bar).

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    Sir, i know that, even if the game have a cathegory of cav that rely on melee combat so technically what you wrote only applies to shock cavalry specifically, but still i know that.
    And i know that cav can be good too. If the map permits, you can play with the "aggressive" AI that just run at you mindlessly to pick units separated from the main group and use your speed as an advantage, and it work for the few non-pukey cav units, and probably works even for the garbage cav (by garbage here i don't mean low tier, but actual garbage) units if you do 4v1 against same-tier units.
    But you see, with this logic one can say swordmasters are good units because they chop garbage infantry. That's true, but you see, is like saying a boxer is a good boxer, because he won a match against a 8 year old. I mean, yes, he's not a paraplegic, he can still win a boxing match against a kid, but is just stupid calling him a good boxer, no one sane will do that. Same logic for cav. Yes, they have more tactical flexibility than random chosen unit that can only melee-grind an nothing else, but that doesn't mean they're good (same can be said for units like gyrobombers or deck droppers, or more conventioanl ranged like dwarf's ballista or eshin ranged units outside eshin faction: they're all garbage BECAUSE OF THE **** STATS).
    They aren't all garbage, but like chariots they all require micro. People in singleplayer just prefer the fire and forget units because it's easier.
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237

    Jman5 said:

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    In total war, Isn't that supposed to vary depending on the type of cavalry? Shock Cavalry isn't supposed to stick around, but melee cavalry is.
    Even the "melee cavalry" get overwhelmed unless it's a complete mismatch.
    From how i see it (which could be wrong af since, well, there's not many good melee cav specifically in the game), the point of shock cav is to deal a devastating ammount of damage in the charge and the 5 seconds after.
    Melee cav (stats permitting, as always) should be like a more flexible ultrafast infantry unit, which don't need to "charge properly" to be useful (so, while shock cavalry would be better at rear charging and cycle charging, melee cav can be better at creating problems in the back line by disrupting ranged infantry and, if isolated, fight them without having problems if those ranged are close together [i mean, shock cavalry is basically useless if you charge a unit that's too close]).
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    edited November 2020

    elkapp said:

    The reason cavalry (if by cavalry you mean the garden variety kind with many models per unit) is so bad in WH2, especially on higher difficulties, is a combination of AI morale buffs and simply bad stats.

    Monsters that work like cavalry, such as carnosaurs, are quite a lot better than regular many-model cavalry.

    Cavalry in WH2 often rely on their charge stat to cause casualties, since their actual melee stats are pretty mediocre. However, they just don´t cause that many casualties - they just knock units back, units that then get up again and fight the cavalry in melee. Cycle charging is kind of, but not super, useful.

    Combine this with the fact that AI morale is generally too high in WH2 (the AI essentially always fights to the death on VH battle difficulty), the AI gets disproportionate melee buffs, and lastly that units tire in seconds but take forever to get their stamina back, and you get the result that most cavalry is just bad.

    Contrast this with chariots which are generally much more useful, and fulfil very much the same role.

    Cavalry is much better in TW:Attila and 3 Kingdoms, despite them being very similar to WH2. 3K shock cavalry can absolutely melt a unit on a rear charge, and Attila spear cavalry are real killers too.

    In the end, they are different games. WH2 is not a very good strategy game as such, to be honest... it is more about using OP stuff, abuse rules, and exploiting AI idiocy to win.

    Bretonnia cavalry is pretty decent though, perhaps partly because almost all of their top tier cavalry doesn´t tire in combat.

    Except when you wrote about 3K and Attila (which i never played them), i agree with everything you said.

    And also, want to add my view to the "leadership" thing by saying that buffs, while damaging of course cavalry in it's entirety, is not actually the root problem. I mean melee buffs for AI technically are a problem, i don't think anyone can say otherwise, but there's more.

    I've noticed that usually leadership is more like a second hp bar, like 90% of the times, and that's because the big 2 things that damage leadership are not lord dead, or being flanked, but 1) getting outnumbered (aka the joke old as stone of the group of ironbreakers corner camping against skavenslaves spam and routing after 2 seconds) and 2) taking damage (aka why the "second hp bar"). If we want, we can add as third option having the lord dead, but that works only against low tier units that have already been damaged, so we're back at the start, because you still need to deal damage to units.
    Also, army losses. Basically the only way to win a battle is through army losses, and what cause army losses? **** DAMAGE, and how much "overall strength" you have.

    Obviously, someone can say that cavalry in TWW2 don't need to be a leadership breaker and can just be a damage dealer, which is completely right, and actually, that's probably what the devs want from cav, the problem is that they suck at dealing damage. I mean, in my main post i literally explained why each cav unit was garbage FROM A STATS PERSPECTIVE, didn't say **** about leadership, because i was trying to think of the game as a dev would (in this case, a game where leadership is a second hp bar).

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    Sir, i know that, even if the game have a cathegory of cav that rely on melee combat so technically what you wrote only applies to shock cavalry specifically, but still i know that.
    And i know that cav can be good too. If the map permits, you can play with the "aggressive" AI that just run at you mindlessly to pick units separated from the main group and use your speed as an advantage, and it work for the few non-pukey cav units, and probably works even for the garbage cav (by garbage here i don't mean low tier, but actual garbage) units if you do 4v1 against same-tier units.
    But you see, with this logic one can say swordmasters are good units because they chop garbage infantry. That's true, but you see, is like saying a boxer is a good boxer, because he won a match against a 8 year old. I mean, yes, he's not a paraplegic, he can still win a boxing match against a kid, but is just stupid calling him a good boxer, no one sane will do that. Same logic for cav. Yes, they have more tactical flexibility than random chosen unit that can only melee-grind an nothing else, but that doesn't mean they're good (same can be said for units like gyrobombers or deck droppers, or more conventioanl ranged like dwarf's ballista or eshin ranged units outside eshin faction: they're all garbage BECAUSE OF THE **** STATS).
    They aren't all garbage, but like chariots they all require micro. People in singleplayer just prefer the fire and forget units because it's easier.
    Sir, i never said **** about chariots, because chariots are overall good (of course, you still have bad examples like cold one chariots). The only problem i have with chariots is that there aren't a lot of elite chariot units, so maybe in the late game they are ****, but in the early and mid are good. Not the best early game unit you could ask for (like, darkshards, HE archers, VP handguns,...), but still they do their job (and expecially the TK ones: they can carry you a lot in the early game).

    Cav on the other hand, other than requiring way more micro, perform way worse (except bretonnia, where they are good, but honestly that's the only good thing they have).
  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    elkapp said:

    Jman5 said:

    They aren't all garbage, but they all require micro.

    Cavalry isn't meant to stay in combat, not even historically did cavalry allow itself to caught in a melee.

    In total war, Isn't that supposed to vary depending on the type of cavalry? Shock Cavalry isn't supposed to stick around, but melee cavalry is.
    Even the "melee cavalry" get overwhelmed unless it's a complete mismatch.
    From how i see it (which could be wrong af since, well, there's not many good melee cav specifically in the game), the point of shock cav is to deal a devastating ammount of damage in the charge and the 5 seconds after.
    Melee cav (stats permitting, as always) should be like a more flexible ultrafast infantry unit, which don't need to "charge properly" to be useful (so, while shock cavalry would be better at rear charging and cycle charging, melee cav can be better at creating problems in the back line by disrupting ranged infantry and, if isolated, fight them without having problems if those ranged are close together [i mean, shock cavalry is basically useless if you charge a unit that's too close]).
    Well something to remember is that some of that shock cavalry has a bonus vs large. So they can also be used against large targets in sustained combat.

    Yeah melee cavalry is good for disrupting rear lines and can still serve as a hammer. They still shouldn't try to solo an infantry unit though.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    Even if you cycle charge, which I maintain is **** dumb, you hardly get value, and you certainly don't get value in relation to effort.

    You can do more, with less.

    Less resource investment.
    Less effort.
    More results.

    You don't need Cav. At all.

    You are looking at often expensive high tier units, that can be replaced with a ranged unit.
    Kneel

  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,590
    Surge_2 said:

    Even if you cycle charge, which I maintain is **** dumb, you hardly get value, and you certainly don't get value in relation to effort.

    You can do more, with less.

    Less resource investment.
    Less effort.
    More results.

    You don't need Cav. At all.

    You are looking at often expensive high tier units, that can be replaced with a ranged unit.

    this again not cav issue, its because range too stronk, and buff stacking problem,

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    Remove ranged power, Cav still bounces off MANY units, even in a rear cycle charge scenario (again, that I maintain is dumb as **** dirt and is as flavourful as trash) you are getting nothing that you could not get from just using a different unit and grinding them down.

    Remove cycle charging and cav is literal garbage tier.

    The only faction, literally, where it works in any kind of thematic sense, is with maxed out Chaos, or Bret cav.

    Everything else bounces, or melts or is so ineffectual and limp when compared to its cost, that you are just hamstringing yourself.

    Kneel

  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,590
    remove buff stacking, doom stacking

    and the unit with best charge is technically knights of the blazing sun, take a look at some MP matches to see how cav perform,


    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • jamesbluewavejamesbluewave Registered Users Posts: 531
    I was thinking about it and the single player game just pushes you away from cavalry too. It’s expensive, micro intensive, and more importantly, you can’t spam it as most factions. The skills tree doesn’t favor building a balanced army, it favors spam. In older games I liked 6 cav, 6 archers, 7 inf, 1 gen always mounted. But if you were to do that in this game, that’s atleast 9 points you have to throw in the red tree and 13 if you want the Bonus to exp 7+ Which is just too many to justify getting a balanced army.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    I don't need to look at MP.

    All I need do, is have infantry engaged from the front, and smash into them from the back.

    With heavy cav, that should be utterly devastating.

    Crushing. Like so help me god, a charge by Bloodcrushers better be unstoppable from the back.
    Kneel

  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,590
    Surge_2 said:

    I don't need to look at MP.

    All I need do, is have infantry engaged from the front, and smash into them from the back.

    With heavy cav, that should be utterly devastating.

    Crushing. Like so help me god, a charge by Bloodcrushers better be unstoppable from the back.

    then pray that buff stacking is not too bad in WH3 , here is the caveat any cav can crush many units on rear charge as long there is no buff stacking with buff stacking units can withstand even insane situations.

    hence why Cav is popular in MP, since there is no buff stacking

    alternatively they could add tech, skills , ..etc which can buff stack cav to high heavens which usual CA solution

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Surge_2 said:

    I don't need to look at MP.

    All I need do, is have infantry engaged from the front, and smash into them from the back.

    With heavy cav, that should be utterly devastating.

    Crushing. Like so help me god, a charge by Bloodcrushers better be unstoppable from the back.

    It IS devastating even in campaign with all the buffs you can stack up.

    But shooting the enemy to pieces while AFK is way easier.


    Again, cavalry is not bad, monsters and ranged units are simply WAY too strong and convenient to use.
  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    Surge_2 said:

    I don't need to look at MP.

    All I need do, is have infantry engaged from the front, and smash into them from the back.

    With heavy cav, that should be utterly devastating.

    Crushing. Like so help me god, a charge by Bloodcrushers better be unstoppable from the back.

    Cavalry is useful in MP. SP rewards face roll compositions more.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,414
    I read this thread for the entertainment value. I avoided any mad cackling when I read that Dragon Princes were bad, but it was a near thing.

    If you can't kill stuff rear charging with the top tier cavalry units in the game, my guess is you live in rural Arkansas or West Virginia. Stop chasing your sister, that's not what it means.

    It's pretty easy easy to do ~250 kills per top tier heavy cavalry unit. You want to argue against cycle charging? Sure, go for it. Don't pretend they suck though.

    It's child's play to use four units of even mid tier cavalry to scrape off the AI ranged units, blow out the melee line on a flank, and chain route the entire enemy army. With minimal casualties. Without "cycle charging" too.
  • jamesbluewavejamesbluewave Registered Users Posts: 531
    psychoak said:

    I read this thread for the entertainment value. I avoided any mad cackling when I read that Dragon Princes were bad, but it was a near thing.

    If you can't kill stuff rear charging with the top tier cavalry units in the game, my guess is you live in rural Arkansas or West Virginia. Stop chasing your sister, that's not what it means.

    It's pretty easy easy to do ~250 kills per top tier heavy cavalry unit. You want to argue against cycle charging? Sure, go for it. Don't pretend they suck though.

    It's child's play to use four units of even mid tier cavalry to scrape off the AI ranged units, blow out the melee line on a flank, and chain route the entire enemy army. With minimal casualties. Without "cycle charging" too.

    Well, if your paying 700$/unit just to kill archers...something that the ai just don’t use properly......I mean... that’s a mad cackle...You can just use your lord and waste archer ammo.....there..... saved you all the money you were spending on cav............ it’s just so inefficient. And well, I haven’t seen flanking matter as much because of leadership being way too high for a lot of units in this game, maybe it work on normal, but Vh battle difficulty, flanking just makes the leadership standard, it doesn’t tend to break unless really low tier units.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    psychoak said:

    I read this thread for the entertainment value. I avoided any mad cackling when I read that Dragon Princes were bad, but it was a near thing.

    If you can't kill stuff rear charging with the top tier cavalry units in the game, my guess is you live in rural Arkansas or West Virginia. Stop chasing your sister, that's not what it means.

    It's pretty easy easy to do ~250 kills per top tier heavy cavalry unit. You want to argue against cycle charging? Sure, go for it. Don't pretend they suck though.

    It's child's play to use four units of even mid tier cavalry to scrape off the AI ranged units, blow out the melee line on a flank, and chain route the entire enemy army. With minimal casualties. Without "cycle charging" too.

    If you want to claim it works, fine. Yes, it can work.

    If you think it's efficient, from a SP perspective, I don't think so. They are simply not good enough in relation to other options.
    Kneel

  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Surge_2 said:

    psychoak said:

    I read this thread for the entertainment value. I avoided any mad cackling when I read that Dragon Princes were bad, but it was a near thing.

    If you can't kill stuff rear charging with the top tier cavalry units in the game, my guess is you live in rural Arkansas or West Virginia. Stop chasing your sister, that's not what it means.

    It's pretty easy easy to do ~250 kills per top tier heavy cavalry unit. You want to argue against cycle charging? Sure, go for it. Don't pretend they suck though.

    It's child's play to use four units of even mid tier cavalry to scrape off the AI ranged units, blow out the melee line on a flank, and chain route the entire enemy army. With minimal casualties. Without "cycle charging" too.

    If you want to claim it works, fine. Yes, it can work.

    If you think it's efficient, from a SP perspective, I don't think so. They are simply not good enough in relation to other options.
    But that's because those options are massively OP and aided by bad AI prioritization, not because cavalry is bad.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    I'm not disagreeing with you.

    What's easier? Nerf everything to Cav level or buff cav?
    Kneel

  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,590
    Surge_2 said:

    I'm not disagreeing with you.

    What's easier? Nerf everything to Cav level or buff cav?

    there is way too freaking buffs so nerf. yes

    adding more buffs is not the solution

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954

    Surge_2 said:

    I'm not disagreeing with you.

    What's easier? Nerf everything to Cav level or buff cav?

    there is way too freaking buffs so nerf. yes

    adding more buffs is not the solution
    ??? I don't know if that's the path.
    Kneel

Sign In or Register to comment.