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

Meta discussion #1 - Bracing, charging and counter-charging cavalry

Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
This topic was discussed a bit in another thread, and deserves a clean start. I have made some more tests together with Loupi primarily, but also WickD helped out and I'll try to summarize the results below and hope we can have a grown up discussion about these things. Also credit to Lotus_moon, Xiphos and Hanen for discussing these tests and game play in general. Over all I will keep it short and let the results speak for themselves in the OP so we can keep the discussions and opinions to the replies.

Conclusions

I'll actually start backwards with the conclusions to hopefully not lose your attention in a wall of screenshots.

1. In all the tests we performed, shock cav performed better if left in sustained combat than if we cycle charged, and it did that for two reasons - (a) denying the infantry its charge bonus (shock cav often trade down on the charge!) and (b) not getting models stuck and killed every time you pull out.

2. If your infantry does not have CDvL, then you're actually better off not bracing because if you brace you're helping the enemy cav models to not penetrate deep and get stuck.

3. Unsupported infantry decisively beat unsupported cavalry for the cost, and chaos warriors with great weapons win more decisively than chaos warriors with halberds against cycle charging questing knights in a 5v4 free-for-all (4150 vs 4400 gold).

All in all, we find it extremely unintuitive that cycle charging unsupported infantry on the open field with shock cavalry is way less efficient than just leaving them in sustained melee. The quicker you pull out, the harder you lose against counter-charging infantry. Only vs braced infantry does cycle-charging become efficient, which is again counter-intuitive.

Method

We tried to keep it simple, our unit vs unit tests were performed 4 units vs 4, played out one by one.

Test 1. Infantry and Cav mutually charging each other, the cav stays in melee for 5 seconds before pulling out to cycle again.
Test 2. Same as 1. but staying only for 1 second in melee.
Test 3. Mutual charge and then both units stay in sustained melee until a unit breaks.
Test 4. Infantry braced vs cycles charging cav who stays for 1s in melee.

We tried to pick matchups that seemed "fair" in terms of damage type so that both units deal a damage type that the opponent does not mitigate, i.e. ap vs high armour and non-ap vs low armour.

Test results


CWGW vs QK


CWGW vs DP


CWGW vs Demi lances


Marauder GW vs QK


Marauder GW vs KotBS


Orc boys vs WR


Not the same format, but it's a single mutual charge between savage orcs (550 gold) and wild riders (1100 gold)


...and the end result after 3-4 cycles.


End screen QK vs CWGW


End screen QK vs CW halberds.

You can have the replays of each test if you wish, just PM me.

Implications

So what does all this mean? This is what I hope we can have a mature discussion about here. How is this affecting, and how will this affect, the meta as it gets fully established?

The observations we make here is that infantry, especially with AP against heavy cav, that has a good CB will deal huge amount of gold value damage to elite cav on the counter-charge. This has always been the case, most clearly with black orcs, but it is now more pronounced. You can even use cheap gw infantry like marauder gw to trade extremely well upwards vs charging elite heavy cav. The same is observed for unarmoured elite shock cav like wild riders, even basic sword infantry like orc boys trade really well on a mutual charge. Elite shock cav trading down on the charge makes it actually beneficial to deny the infantry their charge bonus, which is highly counter-intuitive for how shock cav is supposed to play.

The second part of this is the problem of cav models penetrating deep into infantry and getting stuck, making each withdrawal result in lost cav models, further giving you incentive to stay in sustained melee with your shock cav. This also has the even more unintuitive effect that the worst thing you can do with your infantry is to brace, because then you will catch fewer enemy cav models and kill them....

Questions that I would like to discuss would be in the lines of:

- How can we help shock cav function like shock cav without dialing back some of the positive effects of infantry cohesion? Do we need changes to cav units or do we need to change cohesion for certain unit types.
- How can we make bracing more intuitive?
- How can transfer back the anti-cav role to spears/halberds while keeping both units balanced over all?

Etc etc. The aim here would be to promote intuitive good game play and a healthy meta, not to upset the balance.
«13456713

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    Yes cavalry dynamics have changed since they changed them. Cycle charging being less desirable is a good thing;

    I don’t think people are really unaware of these dynamics though certainly old habits die hard.

    I think in practice you’re overestimating how this translates into how highly mobile units behave and what they contribute, or how practical it is to expect infantry to get charges off against cav.

    I could be wrong, maybe someone will completely optimize this in a way that completely changes the meta. But in general I think the meta has already shifted, but not to a problematic or dramatic degree.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,008
    edited April 21
    I did a number of tests back in november or so, playing AI general vs AI, as many units on either side as large funds llows and almost ~identical funds, i just redid 3 of those test;
    QK vs white lions (small QK win)
    QK vs chaos warriors (small QK win)
    Reiksguard vs NOR champions (very close, NOR win)

    the results were almost identical to back in november.
    These tests are a lot closer to actual combat situations than 1v1 test, taking the hit to morale into account and allowing cavalry mobility to play a larger role. Cavalry is also somewhat favored by infantry having higher mass as they are less likely to get tied up inside infantry post charge.
    to me, most of your examples are how cavalry generally always did and should function. the fights were pretty even and generally knights fight about even with a tier lower infantry adn will lose to same tier.
    This is balanced since those infantry will get slaughtered by ranged which is in turn slaughtered by cavalry.

    The only thing that has changed is that 100% micro no longer offers the same advantage it once did, you cant charge without getting hit back, since this mostly mattered in lategame abuse and since it messes up the rck paper scissor balance thats all for the good in my book. there's no issue to fix imo.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
    Ok, so let me give my personal opinion here. In my opinion:

    1. Shock cav is defined by their mobility and devastating charge. Their core design in my world is that they trade very well on the charge and then loses in sustained combat, but use their mobility to make the best use possible if their class defining charge. Therefore I find it extremely counterintuitive when shock cavalry do better in sustained combat than they do when cycle charging and using their charge to the max. In fact they lose value quite horribly on a mutual charge. The shock cav is actually scared of the non-antilarge infantry charge more than vice versa. 500g Marauder gw trash 1200g blazing suns on a mutual charge. Intuitively, cheap axemen should fear being lanced down in open field, not the opposite.

    2. Cycle charging is actually more efficient vs braced units than vs unbraced units or countercharging units because you lose more models. Again very counter intuitive to me. Bracing is hard but is not rewarded, white countercharging is easier and more efficient. This results is cw great weapons countering elite shock cav more efficient than cw halberds for the same cost. This is again completely opposite from the basic game design of halberds being anti large with charge defense. A very clear symptom of something being very wrong here.

    These are my two main opinions.

    How to address it? Not sure. Its hard to foresee all outcomes of such changes.

    I would think that we need to differ the mass/cohesion effects between anti-large infantry and more generalist or glass cannon type infantry. I think the changes were very positive for spears and halberds (including longbeards), but cheap infantry and chaff got buffs that they did not need and I think that promotes the 20 stack meta.

    Another approach that ought to be feasible would be to reduce the mass/cohesion while you are charging. In other words make high mass matter more when high mass and low mass charge each other.

    A third variant would be to somehow allow lances to hit before swords and axes. I guess it would involve animation timing and is probably not trivial...

    These are some ideas for the melting pot.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,161
    While it doesnt affect cav other important role

    Such as backline attack, rear charge, tying down big monsters, and so on

    It has reduced the viability of cav to do frontal charges against non AL units.

    Frontal charges arent free and easy in the first place, often there would be range support, spells or counter charge from opponents’ cav or monster, and you have to charge non AL inf

    However In the opportune moment of a non AL infantry left alone without support. It should be the infantry player being punished when it is faced against a more expensive shock cav.

    Right now, its reversed. Imagine a halberd infantry can beat a similar or more expensive anti infantry inf. Intuitively and gameplay wise it is wrong. The risk and reward is imbalanced
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    Cycle charging simply isn’t a thing for cav anymore. Charging and optionally remaining in combat in advantageous circumstances is. Their is no longer a charger temporary invulnerability aura in the game for most unit types.

    Bracing is not primarily about ease of use. It’s the option for cdvl units to be “safe” while standing still, without having to leave their formation and chase units around the map. This is relevant since all units in an army have to work in a cohesive fashion. You don’t get to engage in a series of hypothetical 1v1s.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,161
    The argument that the cav player can avoid it with its mobility is a wrong one.

    Why should the cav player avoid it when the lone non AL infantry is its target?

    Put to the extreme

    Should cav avoid charging in a cheaper lone non AL archers that hypothetically now can beat cav in melee? just get better and avoid them?
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037

    The argument that the cav player can avoid it with its mobility is a wrong one.

    Why should the cav player avoid it when the lone non AL infantry is its target?

    Put to the extreme

    Should cav avoid charging in a cheaper lone non AL archers that hypothetically now can beat cav in melee? just get better and avoid them?

    Cav, like trolls, trade badly with infantry when unsupported in simple 1v1s. As their stats would suggest.

    Archers however cav can bully just fine, as their stats would suggest.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
    The sick thing is that wild riders fear the charge of even orc boys more than the orc boys fear the charge of the wild riders. There is nothing anyone can say to make me think that is working as intended tbh.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,161
    eumaies said:

    The argument that the cav player can avoid it with its mobility is a wrong one.

    Why should the cav player avoid it when the lone non AL infantry is its target?

    Put to the extreme

    Should cav avoid charging in a cheaper lone non AL archers that hypothetically now can beat cav in melee? just get better and avoid them?

    Cav, like trolls, trade badly with infantry when unsupported in simple 1v1s. As their stats would suggest.

    Archers however cav can bully just fine, as their stats would suggest.
    Yes, in sustain melee they should be worse but the topic is primarily about cycle charging

    My statement is that in an extreme example if a cheaper archer can beat cav in melee, is that fair? Because its the same thing right now for inf charging back at cav.


    Your previous statement of cycle charging isnt a thing anymore for cav is out of nowhere.


    most ppl still use shock cav as cycle charger, still see it in the higher bracket world cup.

  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 656
    eumaies said:

    Cycle charging simply isn’t a thing for cav anymore. Charging and optionally remaining in combat in advantageous circumstances is. Their is no longer a charger temporary invulnerability aura in the game for most unit types.

    Bracing is not primarily about ease of use. It’s the option for cdvl units to be “safe” while standing still, without having to leave their formation and chase units around the map. This is relevant since all units in an army have to work in a cohesive fashion. You don’t get to engage in a series of hypothetical 1v1s.

    Disagree with this. Cycle charging is perfectly fine, you just actually leave them in for 3-5s to use all the CB before renewing.

    With the knockdown change.... units stats are actually used and so the CB for the infantry is applied AND USED. They dont flop about like wet noodles anymore. So for example chaos warriors GW have 60MA and 60WS with AP majority. That's stats working for once.

    That's why the charge is so important. ALSO notice how most units you tested were semi loose formation, this means that once the front lines get krumpt (which they do) the backlines gan come in swinging less interrupted than should they have been tight formation. For chaos warriors GW this means 60MA 60WS coming in hit to cut some horses.

    If testing without countercharge, so what would happen in most games if played properly -- keep in mind its still charging head on (which is silly) -- the QK or whatever cav win and do well for themselves. Giving up speed advantage, and charging head on, they (QK) pay for themselves vs chosen GW. That's pretty good.

    I... honestly dont know how you get those results vs savage Orcs, we tested 5v5 and the wild riders won every time, not gold efficiant DUE TO HIGH CB COUNTERCHARGE OF URKS but won every time. With no counter charge it's no challenge for the cav. Even the AI won with wild riders...
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037

    eumaies said:

    The argument that the cav player can avoid it with its mobility is a wrong one.

    Why should the cav player avoid it when the lone non AL infantry is its target?

    Put to the extreme

    Should cav avoid charging in a cheaper lone non AL archers that hypothetically now can beat cav in melee? just get better and avoid them?

    Cav, like trolls, trade badly with infantry when unsupported in simple 1v1s. As their stats would suggest.

    Archers however cav can bully just fine, as their stats would suggest.
    Yes, in sustain melee they should be worse but the topic is primarily about cycle charging

    My statement is that in an extreme example if a cheaper archer can beat cav in melee, is that fair? Because its the same thing right now for inf charging back at cav.


    Your previous statement of cycle charging isnt a thing anymore for cav is out of nowhere.


    most ppl still use shock cav as cycle charger, still see it in the higher bracket world cup.

    Cycle charging if what you mean is repeatedly charging under advantageous conditions while periodically refreshing your charge bonus remains cavalry’s strength.

    If instead you mean trying to get quick damage without taking damage in return due to exploiting knockback mechanics repeatedly by pulling back right after your charge is not still a thing.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 13,810
    edited April 21
    i agree with @eumaies

    it just made the model count actually matter more. its a meta shift from more specialized armies to more balanced armies,


    also its not like you can have cav take 2 v 1 engagements or have cheaper cav or light cav , or hounds or bats/harpies support engagements as mobile anvils or fodder

    just my take on it

    does cav need more mass yes but i doubt it will change the fact infantry now can hit back, because they don't fall down as frequent as before and you can see with it lot of high mass SEM, and with their CB have enough weapon strength to kill off cav models
    either case it will not be good as it was in the past
    Post edited by saweendra on
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
    To illustrate what I mean that the elite shock cav fears the infantry charge more than the handweapon infantry fears the shock cavalry charge, look at the result after a mutual 5 second charge - retreat.



    On the charge, the 500 gold marauder gw dealt 506 gold damage value to the shock cav while the shock cav dealt 224 gold damage to the handweapon infantry.

    To me this seems just hilariously broken and I fail to understand how anyone can defend this interaction. Unarmored non-antilarge infantry isolated in the field should be the dream target for elite shock cav. Them actually trading down horribly on the mutual charge is bonkers to me. Completely drop me dead bonkers!
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
    Btw, I have edited in replay files if you want to look at the tests in post #3 above. This screenie is from one of them.
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 639
    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,685

    The argument that the cav player can avoid it with its mobility is a wrong one.

    Why should the cav player avoid it when the lone non AL infantry is its target?

    Put to the extreme

    Should cav avoid charging in a cheaper lone non AL archers that hypothetically now can beat cav in melee? just get better and avoid them?

    Imho your premise is wrong in that you think it is claimed that you should avoid charging the lone inf unit altogether. Far from it. What you have to avoid is get counter charged. Now we can argue if that is justifiable, but otherwise the cav has a clear advantage and will prevail against the CW unit.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,008
    cavalry beating everything that isnt antilarge/charge defense isnt balance. making shock cavalry stronger on the charge but weaker in sustained combat might work, then they'd be vulnerable to other fast units, lapses in micro, as well as antilarge but strong vs all else.
    I dont really see the need for it though. cavalry is antiranged not antiinfantry.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 765
    edited April 21
    A few points before addressing the questions:

    1. These tests start from an unproven assertion (Shock cav isn't behaving as intended therefore needs some sort of buff or broader game rebalancing to improve performance without additional cost changes)
    2. OP doesn't make any effort to explain why frontally charging a full hp 60+ speed unit into a full hp 20+ speed unit should necessarily result in a better trade for the much quicker unit (this is just taken as a given based on former performance in an explicitly bugged game)
    3. Unproven assertion from 1 conflicts with actual behaviour of high level players who still pick shock cav with frequency (I.e. If what OP is claiming is true and shock cav is underpowered or underperforming, what explains players still picking it in such high stakes scenarios?)

    The questions OP asks us to the consider leapfrog some major foundational questions that need to be addressed first for any coherent discussion to occur, otherwise this conversation with inevitably descend into people talking past each other. So before answering the Q's above (which take many unproven assumptions as a given) need to see some coherent answers to the below:

    1. If shock cav is considered to be uniformly underperforming, why does it still have very respectable pick rates by top 32/64 players in WWC? What explains this behaviour?

    2. A continuation of the above, what explains the high pick rate (and solid performance) of a faction extremely dependent on its cavalry to do damage against the very types of units it is claimed to be under performing against?

    3. What is OP's definition of "Good gameplay" and a "healthy meta" in regards to shock cav? How does this differ from the uses high level players are currently finding for shock cav in WWC?



    TL;DR: Conclusions of OP if true are in direct conflict with actual behaviour exhibited by players who seem highly motivated to take this into account (playing for thousands of dollars and tournament prestige). This indicates shock cav are being broadly undervalued for their strengths in OP while weaknesses are emphasised in a way to justify dubious buffs.
    Pre-Covid Forum Account: Orklads
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    I take as some evidence of their intent the fact that the AI is programmed to cycle charge based on the incentives created by these new mechanics (ie stay a while then recycle) rather than the old mechanics which favored immediate retreat.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 765
    edited April 21
    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    That is one disagreement and worth addressing, but I still haven't seen any attempt to address my major complaint about the whole "shock cav underperforming" premise.

    If everything being said about the underperformance of shock cav is assumed to be true, then why is it still being picked by high level players in the highest stakes TWW tournament that has ever been held?
    Pre-Covid Forum Account: Orklads
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 639
    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    I take as some evidence of their intent the fact that the AI is programmed to cycle charge based on the incentives created by these new mechanics (ie stay a while then recycle) rather than the old mechanics which favored immediate retreat.
    Did the AI's behavior change with the patch?
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    edited April 21
    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    I take as some evidence of their intent the fact that the AI is programmed to cycle charge based on the incentives created by these new mechanics (ie stay a while then recycle) rather than the old mechanics which favored immediate retreat.
    Did the AI's behavior change with the patch?
    Nope! Ca just had a broken game for most of its time in existence.
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 639

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    That is one disagreement and worth addressing, but I still haven't seen any attempt to address my major complaint about the whole "shock cav underperforming" premise.

    If everything being said about the underperformance of shock cav is assumed to be true, then why is it still being picked by high level players in the highest stakes TWW tournament that has ever been held?
    Its a fair point.

    All I know is that Lotus_Moon and Xiphos werent aware about this interaction. Which means that others playing in the tournament might not have realized it either.
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 639
    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    I take as some evidence of their intent the fact that the AI is programmed to cycle charge based on the incentives created by these new mechanics (ie stay a while then recycle) rather than the old mechanics which favored immediate retreat.
    Did the AI's behavior change with the patch?
    Nope! Ca just had a broken game for most of its time in existence.
    If the AI never played to the strenght of the old mechanics I dont see how you can find any intent from CA.

    Unless of course you think it was CAs intent, pre patch, for the AI cav not to be played optimally?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
    .
    hanen said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    That is one disagreement and worth addressing, but I still haven't seen any attempt to address my major complaint about the whole "shock cav underperforming" premise.

    If everything being said about the underperformance of shock cav is assumed to be true, then why is it still being picked by high level players in the highest stakes TWW tournament that has ever been held?
    Its a fair point.

    All I know is that Lotus_Moon and Xiphos werent aware about this interaction. Which means that others playing in the tournament might not have realized it either.
    Yes exactly this, this interaction where the shock cav gets severely out-charged by handweapon infantry is so unintuitive that most people would not even considered it a possibility... I was just laughing when we first tested it!
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    I take as some evidence of their intent the fact that the AI is programmed to cycle charge based on the incentives created by these new mechanics (ie stay a while then recycle) rather than the old mechanics which favored immediate retreat.
    Did the AI's behavior change with the patch?
    Nope! Ca just had a broken game for most of its time in existence.
    If the AI never played to the strenght of the old mechanics I dont see how you can find any intent from CA.

    Unless of course you think it was CAs intent, pre patch, for the AI cav not to be played optimally?
    I’m suggesting that CA designed a game around stats and some intended unit mechanics like CB lasting ten seconds. Then for most of the life of this game exploits around cycle charging dynamics defined how the game was actually played competitively. I’m suggesting that CA cared so little about this disconnect that it took them several years and someone pointing out the bugs in their game for them to fix their game.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,444
    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    I take as some evidence of their intent the fact that the AI is programmed to cycle charge based on the incentives created by these new mechanics (ie stay a while then recycle) rather than the old mechanics which favored immediate retreat.
    Did the AI's behavior change with the patch?
    Nope! Ca just had a broken game for most of its time in existence.
    If the AI never played to the strenght of the old mechanics I dont see how you can find any intent from CA.

    Unless of course you think it was CAs intent, pre patch, for the AI cav not to be played optimally?
    A few people in discord actually pointed out that the ai actually does cycle charge now, and even better, it draw kites too! 🙃
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    hanen said:

    hanen said:

    People, as always, disagree on how they feel the game should function.

    I wouldnt mind getting CAs stance on this. Is this interaction intentional?

    That is one disagreement and worth addressing, but I still haven't seen any attempt to address my major complaint about the whole "shock cav underperforming" premise.

    If everything being said about the underperformance of shock cav is assumed to be true, then why is it still being picked by high level players in the highest stakes TWW tournament that has ever been held?
    Its a fair point.

    All I know is that Lotus_Moon and Xiphos werent aware about this interaction. Which means that others playing in the tournament might not have realized it either.
    I agree not everyone knows and lots of people are still operating to some extent on autopilot from old habits. That said, people have a general sense that things have changed and are more careful with their cav than in the past, even if it hasn’t fully sunk in.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,037
    Just FYI, for context.

    2 on the left without savage orcs charging, 2 on the right with savage orcs charging. Cycle charged once, full formations on both sides, me vs a human, BoP favoring greenskins the whole time:

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2464221763

    lesson of the story is try not to get charged by inf.
Sign In or Register to comment.