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

1356713

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267

    Shock cav being better in sustained combat is already proof that its not working as intended, other than that the cost difference between the units is alarming.

    This shows that cav is a support unit now much so like ranged or must be combined with cheap chaff.

    This is very alarming and needs fixing.

    Some of his graphics are innacurate with respect to wild riders Vs savage orcs and how that plays with or without cycle charging.

    Other results are inconsistent and don’t necessarily show staying in combat as worse than cycling after five seconds. The one example that clearly does is Vs a great weapon chaff inf which also heavily relies on charge bonus.

    Stay in combat for one second isn’t really what you should do in any case (particularly the benchmark of a one sided charge) given the tradeoff between potentially losing an isolated model (especially since no enemies are killed by then) and not even getting your full charge bonus.

    But most of all inf are just not reliably getting charge bonuses Vs cav in regular games.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267
    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2464221763
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,774
    Loupi_ said:

    I think its pretty clear from the replays provided and by observing the meta that the infantry changes were neither well thought out nor tested properly. More and more, competitive games are tending towards very wide infantry focussed armies with only cheap cav used to protect missile units (or just forgoing missile infantry entirely and taking lots of cheap missile cav) with elite cavalry being used progressively less and less.

    I'm not as up to date on the meta but doesn't this suggest the issue is with cheap units rather than elite cav? As is most expensive units have trouble paying for themselves since trading down is hilariously inefficient and army losses only looks at relative army value rather than number of units remaining, number of units killed, amount of damage done, etc. As such units like lords and casters that can easily and efficiently kill lots of entities push elite infantry (and frankly mid tier in some cases) out of the meta, which makes elite cav worse as they don't have targets that are cost efficient trades.

    Issue seems to be that we're in a race to the bottom since removal options on elite multi-entity units are too powerful and cheap units don't provide a meaningful penalty when they die. I could be wrong but I don't see any elite units getting use, and if the issue was just with cavalry you'd expect elite infantry to get some consideration.

    Totally could be wrong on this though I'm way behind on watching worlds which is providing a huge amount of real world data.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267

    The point, again, if not that infantry can hit back some, it's that they out-charge shock cav by a huge margin. Cheap 500 gold marauder gw deal 500+ gold value damage to 1200 gold blazing sun shock cav while taking about 215 gold value damage back. Its completely backwards and not just by a little bit.

    Shock cav should not be most efficient when grinding it goes without saying.... And cycle charging should be a thing, using your mobility to hit and run is just that. Claiming that shock cav should need to stay in sustained combat to beat cheap handweapon infantry is such a strange view on gameplay and I am yet to hear any reasonable reason why cwgw should be much better anticav tools then cw halberds who are indeed bvl and cdvl.

    There are a couple of issues with this example's framing.

    First cheap units often punch up because they get more value per point of damage and cav having less overall hit points means that effect is intensified. Based on damage value the units are trading percentages of health pretty evenly. Still not a good look for the cav but they are doing at least a third more damage to make those numbers make sense.

    Second KOTBS are really inefficient in that trade. They overkill models on the charge and are effectively wasting a lot of damage (120 damage vs 78 hp). Empire knights would likely produce a similar performance while making the trade look far more efficient.

    While damage value is important as a multiplayer consideration it's kind of a screwy stat since it tends to favor cheaper units in trades regardless of if they pay for themselves.

    Having said that the issue is that charge bonus is a huge force multiplier and scales very intensely with high model counts and against high health units. When trading into cavalry the great weapons are able to use all of the extra damage they get on a charge and are dealing out substantially more attacks with that bonus. Pulling out while that's active just creates a situation where your cav are not using their charge bonus while boosting the enemies damage output (rear attacks), which is going to result in a bad trade regardless of the unit type. Waiting for the charge bonus to dissipate before pulling out is important as both an offensive and a defensive consideration, working to maximize your cavalries damage from the charge and minimize damage as they pull out to reset for another charge.

    I think the statement that GWs are a better cavalry counter than spears or halberds is overstated. You're looking at the best possible circumstances for the melee units and suggesting that's indicative of overall performance. In any situation other than a frontal cav charge with a successful infantry counter charge, spears and halberds will perform better and those situations are far more likely to occur. Great weapons also sacrifice a lot of benefits for this potential trade being easily pinned by infantry and picked apart by missiles.

    Frankly I don't think requiring shock cav to either pick their engagements carefully or commit to those engagements is unreasonable, or unintuitive. While I wouldn't object to some mass adjustments for units that are built around cycle charging I don't think that will do much to reduce the damage cav are taking on the charge itself. 3 units getting stuck is going to account for around 350 damage on most cav. If they are trading as poorly as they are it is because of the charge damage they are taking and short of boosting cavs health, boosting cav charge damage, or nerfing infantry charge bonus you're going to continue to infantry performing well in this situation.
    That is a great point about the dangers of pulling away from shock infantry while their charge bonus is most active and your own is not yet expended. That actually explains in my pic why my fourth wild rider (which I cycled a little earlier) did worse than my third.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,267

    Loupi_ said:

    I think its pretty clear from the replays provided and by observing the meta that the infantry changes were neither well thought out nor tested properly. More and more, competitive games are tending towards very wide infantry focussed armies with only cheap cav used to protect missile units (or just forgoing missile infantry entirely and taking lots of cheap missile cav) with elite cavalry being used progressively less and less.

    I'm not as up to date on the meta but doesn't this suggest the issue is with cheap units rather than elite cav? As is most expensive units have trouble paying for themselves since trading down is hilariously inefficient and army losses only looks at relative army value rather than number of units remaining, number of units killed, amount of damage done, etc. As such units like lords and casters that can easily and efficiently kill lots of entities push elite infantry (and frankly mid tier in some cases) out of the meta, which makes elite cav worse as they don't have targets that are cost efficient trades.

    Issue seems to be that we're in a race to the bottom since removal options on elite multi-entity units are too powerful and cheap units don't provide a meaningful penalty when they die. I could be wrong but I don't see any elite units getting use, and if the issue was just with cavalry you'd expect elite infantry to get some consideration.

    Totally could be wrong on this though I'm way behind on watching worlds which is providing a huge amount of real world data.
    I actually think elite infantry are pretty competitive right now. There are few spells left that trash them with their higher armour and they are a valuable counter to chaff and anti large infantry.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,774
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    I think its pretty clear from the replays provided and by observing the meta that the infantry changes were neither well thought out nor tested properly. More and more, competitive games are tending towards very wide infantry focussed armies with only cheap cav used to protect missile units (or just forgoing missile infantry entirely and taking lots of cheap missile cav) with elite cavalry being used progressively less and less.

    I'm not as up to date on the meta but doesn't this suggest the issue is with cheap units rather than elite cav? As is most expensive units have trouble paying for themselves since trading down is hilariously inefficient and army losses only looks at relative army value rather than number of units remaining, number of units killed, amount of damage done, etc. As such units like lords and casters that can easily and efficiently kill lots of entities push elite infantry (and frankly mid tier in some cases) out of the meta, which makes elite cav worse as they don't have targets that are cost efficient trades.

    Issue seems to be that we're in a race to the bottom since removal options on elite multi-entity units are too powerful and cheap units don't provide a meaningful penalty when they die. I could be wrong but I don't see any elite units getting use, and if the issue was just with cavalry you'd expect elite infantry to get some consideration.

    Totally could be wrong on this though I'm way behind on watching worlds which is providing a huge amount of real world data.
    I actually think elite infantry are pretty competitive right now. There are few spells left that trash them with their higher armour and they are a valuable counter to chaff and anti large infantry.
    As I said I'm pretty behind on the meta, just haven't been seeing elite infantry getting much play. Previously I recall a few factions like LZ using what were effectively elite infantry cores with buff spells. Recently it's seemed to shifted to skinks and skirmish. I believe this trend was occurring before the mass adjustments but in spite of them generally improving elite infantry the factions and units I see people talking about being overtuned are often skirmish focused and on the cheaper side.

    The games I do manage to watch tend to show cheap units being a much safer investment in terms of cost where elite units often perform inconsistently. LZ, GS, and BR have all been performing pretty well if I remember and they tend to be playing in a fairly chaffy fashion to both present a wide front line and invest in lords, heroes, or single entities. This is very much anecdotal though it's seemed like we've had a trend towards cheaper units in most places.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,224
    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Vs braced the outcome is fine, vs counter charging i do not think it is fine, the cost difference is 550g vs 1200g here, seems save orcs will 100% of the up trade into wild riders if they charge, i would understand spearmen or something at the very least.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,224
    But most of all inf are just not reliably getting charge bonuses Vs cav in regular games.


    No reason they shouldn't since they cost way less you get more numbers for it, unless they are fighting other infantry. But cavs role than is more of a support to the infantry fights rather that of actual shock cav.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Loupi_ said:

    I think its pretty clear from the replays provided and by observing the meta that the infantry changes were neither well thought out nor tested properly. More and more, competitive games are tending towards very wide infantry focussed armies with only cheap cav used to protect missile units (or just forgoing missile infantry entirely and taking lots of cheap missile cav) with elite cavalry being used progressively less and less.


    the 2 main points are:
    1. Great weapon units being a better and easier to use counter to shock cav than antilarge units with charge defence is just super weird and nonsensical.

    2. Likewise using shock cavalry as a sustained combat unit rather than a cycle charging unit that uses its mass, high charge and mobility is completely counter-intuitive and plain wrong.

    There needs to be a middle ground between how things are and how they were, there is probably no easy fix but here are some ideas:

    1. Units with longer weapons could have longer reach e.g. a lance cav unit should hit first vs infantry with handweapons or great weapons. Similarly halberds could hit first vs units with handweapons (though generally these units have a sizeable antilarge bonus which more or less achieves that). Probably a complicated way to do things though.

    2. Heavy cavalry could have more mass to help knock down infantry and not get caught so easily.


    3. Heavy cavalry could have a higher 'splash attack power multiplier' so their attacks knock around targets with a greater force.

    I think 2 and 3 are the best and simplest ways.

    Number 3 here is a very good idea actually, that would be easy to implement and might have the desired effect with few or no side effects. I hope ca reads this and make some tests because this might be a very clever way to do it!
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    The point, again, if not that infantry can hit back some, it's that they out-charge shock cav by a huge margin. Cheap 500 gold marauder gw deal 500+ gold value damage to 1200 gold blazing sun shock cav while taking about 215 gold value damage back. Its completely backwards and not just by a little bit.

    Shock cav should not be most efficient when grinding it goes without saying.... And cycle charging should be a thing, using your mobility to hit and run is just that. Claiming that shock cav should need to stay in sustained combat to beat cheap handweapon infantry is such a strange view on gameplay and I am yet to hear any reasonable reason why cwgw should be much better anticav tools then cw halberds who are indeed bvl and cdvl.

    There are a couple of issues with this example's framing.

    First cheap units often punch up because they get more value per point of damage and cav having less overall hit points means that effect is intensified. Based on damage value the units are trading percentages of health pretty evenly. Still not a good look for the cav but they are doing at least a third more damage to make those numbers make sense.

    Second KOTBS are really inefficient in that trade. They overkill models on the charge and are effectively wasting a lot of damage (120 damage vs 78 hp). Empire knights would likely produce a similar performance while making the trade look far more efficient.

    While damage value is important as a multiplayer consideration it's kind of a screwy stat since it tends to favor cheaper units in trades regardless of if they pay for themselves.

    Having said that the issue is that charge bonus is a huge force multiplier and scales very intensely with high model counts and against high health units. When trading into cavalry the great weapons are able to use all of the extra damage they get on a charge and are dealing out substantially more attacks with that bonus. Pulling out while that's active just creates a situation where your cav are not using their charge bonus while boosting the enemies damage output (rear attacks), which is going to result in a bad trade regardless of the unit type. Waiting for the charge bonus to dissipate before pulling out is important as both an offensive and a defensive consideration, working to maximize your cavalries damage from the charge and minimize damage as they pull out to reset for another charge.

    I think the statement that GWs are a better cavalry counter than spears or halberds is overstated. You're looking at the best possible circumstances for the melee units and suggesting that's indicative of overall performance. In any situation other than a frontal cav charge with a successful infantry counter charge, spears and halberds will perform better and those situations are far more likely to occur. Great weapons also sacrifice a lot of benefits for this potential trade being easily pinned by infantry and picked apart by missiles.

    Frankly I don't think requiring shock cav to either pick their engagements carefully or commit to those engagements is unreasonable, or unintuitive. While I wouldn't object to some mass adjustments for units that are built around cycle charging I don't think that will do much to reduce the damage cav are taking on the charge itself. 3 units getting stuck is going to account for around 350 damage on most cav. If they are trading as poorly as they are it is because of the charge damage they are taking and short of boosting cavs health, boosting cav charge damage, or nerfing infantry charge bonus you're going to continue to infantry performing well in this situation.
    Yea cheap units dragging more elite units down through attrition is common, but that is not what we see here. What we see in this case is that 500 gold (!) marauder gw crush the 1200 gold (!) shock cav on the charge for value. The cheap infantry generate twice as much value as the shock cav on the charge! . Kotbs that are known for their high unit defining charge bonus gets wrecked by 700 gold cheaper generalist gw infantry on the charge. Its crazy..

    Now, the problem is not that kotbs overkill, the charge damage is fine, the problem is that they receive more than twice that value back from a unit that is not even designed to counter them.

    The intuitive way to play cheap gw infantry is to protect them with cheap spears or chaff to screen them from cav & archers and try to setup a free counter charge. This is still how they are played for most part, but it is now clear that they don't really need such support to trade amazingly well in a slug with shock cav. You can buy two units of gw instead and trade better vs other things, like infantry. I am sure 99% of the players had not realised how skewed this interaction has now become.

    The meta has shifted a fair bit already though, we see much more infantry heavy 20-stacks with way less suoport than before. Even elite factions like the elven factions squeeze out 20-stacks every now and then, and a faction like chaos has got a big upswing this patch cycle.

    I want to stress though, cavalry is not underpowered as such, their interactions with spears and halberds are in a pretty good spot. The issue is that handweapon infantry deal way too much damage to shock cav on a mutual charge. Shock cav now need to run away in fear from handweapon infantry which is just hilariously stupid.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    there's nothing "intuitive" about cavalry beating infantry. without frontal charges cavalry can do very well against infantry, slugging it out they should lose. For shock cavalry to beat infantry they need to be a lot weaker in sustained combat than they currently are.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    RawSugar said:

    there's nothing "intuitive" about cavalry beating infantry. without frontal charges cavalry can do very well against infantry, slugging it out they should lose. For shock cavalry to beat infantry they need to be a lot weaker in sustained combat than they currently are.

    Are you seriously and honestly meaning that it is intuitive that elite shock cav has to run away in fear from naked orcs with hand axes on the open field because if you charge them you'll loose twice as much value as you generate?


    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 855
    And if you dont countercharge you get so absolutely demolished that you might have not have brought that unit because its basically free 550g for your enemy?

    How many times in normal games do you get infantry charging cavalry, for one the cav are faster so can just say nope and go elsewhere and now you have a unit that has delayed its advance and changed course, potentially over extending and getting isolated. Or they are engaged with another unit and the cav rear charges it.

    Secondly, if you charge horses into semi loose formation troops, the way this game works is the rear units dont get sent flying. This means you now have cav models getting charged by big strong axe wielding AP units... that will do damage because of the extra CB MA. Do you jot think, if you were to get charged by cav irl FROM THE FRONT and you countercharge that you wouldnt prepare to meet them and at least get a hit before potentially being run down?
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    yes. scisor doesnt beat rock, not without a lot of fiddling which you cant do 1v1. a decent player should still be able to win 5v5 and easily win if both sides have ranged
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 855
    Generally infantry move to close the distance on enemy infantry and fight, if you feign charges and they charge you especially if you are on the flanks they pull away from your troops, delay their advance and let your other units get more value on them, say peasant archers shooting the now sideways facing troops or waywatchers shooting the now semi isolared chaos warriors GW
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    And if you dont countercharge you get so absolutely demolished that you might have not have brought that unit because its basically free 550g for your enemy?

    How many times in normal games do you get infantry charging cavalry, for one the cav are faster so can just say nope and go elsewhere and now you have a unit that has delayed its advance and changed course, potentially over extending and getting isolated. Or they are engaged with another unit and the cav rear charges it.

    Secondly, if you charge horses into semi loose formation troops, the way this game works is the rear units dont get sent flying. This means you now have cav models getting charged by big strong axe wielding AP units... that will do damage because of the extra CB MA. Do you jot think, if you were to get charged by cav irl FROM THE FRONT and you countercharge that you wouldnt prepare to meet them and at least get a hit before potentially being run down?

    It's fine that infantry hits back, like I said, but it's not fine that cheap handweapon infantry who are primarily designed to kill other infantry deals more than twice as much gold value damage to elite shock cav than they receive, when shock cav are designed to, and live by, dealing shock damage on the charge. It's not that they hit back, it's that the infantry charge is more than twice effective than shock cav on a mutual charge.

    Elite shock cav running away from cheap handweapon infantry who is not designed as an anti-large tool is a big win for the infantry because it's 500 gold scaring away 1200 gold. In terms of funds, you can buy almost 2.5 infantry units for every elite cav, it's not in any way given that higher speed will find you a rear charge, rather the opposite, it's very probably that there will be excess infantry units to counter-charge, and if you stay in sustained melee like you guys think that shock cav should be forced to do in order to at all beat the cheap unit (still trading down for cost), then you'll be very very exposed to be charged by a second unit and destroyed.

    Shock cav doing hit-and-run attacks is part of their identity, and half the name there in hit-and-run implies that they can successfully disengage without becoming way less efficient. And again, they don't become inefficient because of pulling away (turning back or getting models stuck), they become inefficient because this gives the infantry the opportunity to counter-charge again!
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    RawSugar said:

    yes. scisor doesnt beat rock, not without a lot of fiddling which you cant do 1v1. a decent player should still be able to win 5v5 and easily win if both sides have ranged

    We tested this too, for similar funds (4150 infantry vs 4400 cav, i.e. 5 vs 4 units) the infantry crushed the cavalry hard. This was me controlling the infantry and loupi controlling the cav, and he is a higher micro player than me and I have not played a single game for the last 3 weeks so I am rusty. Using cwgw was a hard counter vs his cav, and unintuitively cw halberds was a softer counter because bracing is actually hard to do when swarmed, while counter-charging is easy to pull off. There is no way for shock cav to enter melee without being exposed to being counter-charged. All I need to do is press the mouse button once, exactly in the same way that he presses the mouse button once to charge me.

    When bracing however it's hard to avoid being flanked and receive flank charges, and you end up having to counter-charge with halberds just to face the right direction, and they are less efficient at that than great weapons are.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,861

    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Vs braced the outcome is fine, vs counter charging i do not think it is fine, the cost difference is 550g vs 1200g here, seems save orcs will 100% of the up trade into wild riders if they charge, i would understand spearmen or something at the very least.
    Ive largely been observing this debate take place in both threads. However,

    No one would suggest a unit with low Hp, md and model count would want to receive a charge from savage orcs, it's the perfect victim for them. As are the savage orcs for the cav, but they have more models and Hp.

    Yes the cav get a charge off as well on the savage orcs, however.

    Cav overkill on the charge per attack.

    Savage orcs don't overkill so much but do so enough to kill models, the higher number of savage Orc models mean each cav model is fighting 2-3 orcs. So at least one Orc will strike back, and with its Cb active it will likely kill a cav model.

    Hence the trade. Its usually 1 cav vs 1-3 infantry, which is also a reflection on why formed infantry were a counter to cav.


    I'd suggest the real solution is to increase Cav SPLASH DAMAGE on the charge but not on halberd or AL cav
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited April 2021
    yeah similar cost infantry vs cavalry infantry wins, thats as it should be, i meant at the cost difference of you examples.
    QK are able to get a small win against white lions when both sides are AI controlled, but even for them GW CW are too much to handle at cost. Chaos infantry is no joke :open_mouth:
    maybe a player can get a big win with white lions keeping the units together and never making openings for the cavalry to gang up, but thats what ranged and magic is for.

    halberds being weaker is indeed unintuitive but honestly to me that suggests charge defense should rely on facing not bracing, or at least cost less charge bonus.

    Cavalry has such a huge advantage against ranged that it HAS to come at a cost, that cost is being weaker than slow melee in slugs. if you want them to be strong-ish vs infantry then like chariots they need further weaknesses (although there is an argument to be made that chariots are now a little too weak).
  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 1,453
    edited April 2021

    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.

    The thing is, this isn't entirely accurate. On that initial charge, cavalry do have advantages:
    1. They hit first due to longer reach, meaning some infantry models are dying or being knocked prone before even having the opportunity to make strikes against the cav.
    2. Cavalry have a large mobility advantage. Paired with much cheaper infantry to hold that elite infantry in place for just a small amount of time, the cavalry can take a decisive edge by cycle charging the rear or flank of those units
    3. It very much depends on the specific cavalry unit you're talking about, the unit they're fighting, and exactly how they're microed/what formation both are in.

    Bret cav can be made significantly better on the charge by swapping to lance formation as the charge is connecting (so they get the additional charge bonus, but don't get put into the lance formation that lets the unit they're charging wrap around and get flank attacks). Doing this can really help get the most out of cycle charging with them.

    Questing knights, for example, are not shock cav. They're melee cav; they aren't well suited for cycle charging. They have a charge bonus of 41. CW GW have a charge bonus of 26, but also have 30 more models in the unit, which results in the bonuses for charging being comparable for the CW GW (1950 vs 1845 potential bonus charge damage, not factoring in the additional melee attack).
    In the process of pulling out, cav are going to take some hits in the flank/rear as entities turn around; any entities stuck in the infantry formation are going to die without attacking as they try to pull away. Given the relatively small difference in charge bonus, it's really no surprise that questing knights don't get much out of cycle charging in that match up in a 1v1 test.

    By contrast, lance chaos knights, with their 80 charge bonus and worse sustained melee stats, do tend to do better with cycle charging (with the exact timing and method of cycle charging being dependent on the enemy unit, how entities get thrown, etc...).

    In real battles, cav are rarely charging head on into spaghetti line infantry, and infantry are rarely getting clean charges onto cav units. There's a reason competitive bretonnia builds are still regularly bringing 4x questing knights.

    I do think many shock cav units could use a bit of an improvement, probably in terms of more HP, but on the whole, cav isn't really in a bad spot, and lower tier/cheaper cav is generally fantastic value with the prevalence of cheaper infantry and lots of missile units.
    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Problem: wild riders have very low armour and melee defense. You're expecting them to trade well in a situation where they should be expected to trade poorly.
    Their stat distribution does not fit for fighting chaff/low tier infantry; it's about as bad as it gets for that. Savage orcs already have extremely low melee defense, so all that extra melee attack the wild riders are getting has minimal value. Meanwhile, they have nearly the worst possible combination of HP + physical resistance for wild riders. With a non-variable (0 armour, so no rng) effective HP of 108 vs a charge damage of 104, they get left with ~3 HP after an initial charge hit 100% of the time, and can then always make a swing of their own, either after getting up off the ground, or immediately, depending on whether or not they were thrown (and if they were thrown, they aren't an immediate target of anything anymore and are likely to get multiple swings off).

    If you throw 1-2 volleys of arrows into that savage orc unit, or a spell like miasma or flock, before charging though, that HP vs damage dealt issue goes away, and wild riders will be killing them in single hits on the charge and trading extremely efficiently compared to vacuum testing, which is probably a more realistic situation to begin with...

    You're putting wild riders in one of the absolute worst possible match ups (for non-anti-large/lightly armoured units) to put them into when digging further into the numbers, and saying they're not trading efficiently enough, despite the variance in the test with countercharging seeming to be ~30% hp on the wild rider unit, which is way too high of variance for any conclusive statements with a limited number of tests.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Vs braced the outcome is fine, vs counter charging i do not think it is fine, the cost difference is 550g vs 1200g here, seems save orcs will 100% of the up trade into wild riders if they charge, i would understand spearmen or something at the very least.
    Ive largely been observing this debate take place in both threads. However,

    No one would suggest a unit with low Hp, md and model count would want to receive a charge from savage orcs, it's the perfect victim for them. As are the savage orcs for the cav, but they have more models and Hp.

    Yes the cav get a charge off as well on the savage orcs, however.

    Cav overkill on the charge per attack.

    Savage orcs don't overkill so much but do so enough to kill models, the higher number of savage Orc models mean each cav model is fighting 2-3 orcs. So at least one Orc will strike back, and with its Cb active it will likely kill a cav model.

    Hence the trade. Its usually 1 cav vs 1-3 infantry, which is also a reflection on why formed infantry were a counter to cav.


    I'd suggest the real solution is to increase Cav SPLASH DAMAGE on the charge but not on halberd or AL cav
    That is one way to buff cav but I don't think that the problem is with cav dealing too little damage on the charge. In order for blazing suns to trade cost efficiently on a mutual charge vs marauder gw they would need to kill the unit in a single charge, which doesn't feel like a good direction to go imo. The real problem is that the gw infantry deal way too much return damage on mutual charges. It's fine that they receive 200 gold worth of damage when being charged, but they generate 500+ gold damage on their counter-charge is what breaks the equation.... That is the reason why it becomes beneficial for shock cav to stay and grind instead of doing a hit-and-run like we are used to shock cav working, because then they give the infantry the chance to charge them again. It's super-backwards! The shock cav is fearing the infantry charge, not vice-versa.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Asamu said:

    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.

    The thing is, this isn't entirely accurate. On that initial charge, cavalry do have advantages:
    1. They hit first due to longer reach, meaning some infantry models are dying or being knocked prone before even having the opportunity to make strikes against the cav.
    2. Cavalry have a large mobility advantage. Paired with much cheaper infantry to hold that elite infantry in place for just a small amount of time, the cavalry can take a decisive edge by cycle charging the rear or flank of those units
    3. It very much depends on the specific cavalry unit you're talking about, the unit they're fighting, and exactly how they're microed/what formation both are in.

    Bret cav can be made significantly better on the charge by swapping to lance formation as the charge is connecting (so they get the additional charge bonus, but don't get put into the lance formation that lets the unit they're charging wrap around and get flank attacks). Doing this can really help get the most out of cycle charging with them.

    Questing knights, for example, are not shock cav. They're melee cav; they aren't well suited for cycle charging. They have a charge bonus of 41. CW GW have a charge bonus of 26, but also have 30 more models in the unit, which results in the bonuses for charging being comparable for the CW GW (1950 vs 1845 potential bonus charge damage, not factoring in the additional melee attack).
    In the process of pulling out, cav are going to take some hits in the flank/rear as entities turn around; any entities stuck in the infantry formation are going to die without attacking as they try to pull away. Given the relatively small difference in charge bonus, it's really no surprise that questing knights don't get much out of cycle charging in that match up in a 1v1 test.

    By contrast, lance chaos knights, with their 80 charge bonus and worse sustained melee stats, do tend to do better with cycle charging (with the exact timing and method of cycle charging being dependent on the enemy unit, how entities get thrown, etc...).

    In real battles, cav are rarely charging head on into spaghetti line infantry, and infantry are rarely getting clean charges onto cav units. There's a reason competitive bretonnia builds are still regularly bringing 4x questing knights.

    I do think many shock cav units could use a bit of an improvement, probably in terms of more HP, but on the whole, cav isn't really in a bad spot, and lower tier/cheaper cav is generally fantastic value with the prevalence of cheaper infantry and lots of missile units.
    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Problem: wild riders have very low armour and melee defense. You're expecting them to trade well in a situation where they should be expected to trade poorly.
    Their stat distribution does not fit for fighting chaff/low tier infantry; it's about as bad as it gets for that. Savage orcs already have extremely low melee defense, so all that extra melee attack the wild riders are getting has minimal value. Meanwhile, they have nearly the worst possible combination of HP + physical resistance for wild riders. With a non-variable (0 armour, so no rng) effective HP of 108 vs a charge damage of 104, they get left with ~3 HP after an initial charge hit 100% of the time, and can then always make a swing of their own, either after getting up off the ground, or immediately, depending on whether or not they were thrown (and if they were thrown, they aren't an immediate target of anything anymore and are likely to get multiple swings off).

    If you throw 1-2 volleys of arrows into that savage orc unit, or a spell like miasma or flock, before charging though, that HP vs damage dealt issue goes away, and wild riders will be killing them in single hits on the charge and trading extremely efficiently compared to vacuum testing, which is probably a more realistic situation to begin with...

    You're putting wild riders in one of the absolute worst possible match ups (for non-anti-large/lightly armoured units) to put them into when digging further into the numbers, and saying they're not trading efficiently enough, despite the variance in the test with countercharging seeming to be ~30% hp on the wild rider unit, which is way too high of variance for any conclusive statements with a limited number of tests.
    This is actually not quite true, if we look at the mutual charge taking place just at the time the units clash here:

    then you can see that both units receive damage on impact, before any models are knocked back. It's a double-sided trade from the first frame.

    A few seconds later a few models are sent flying, while the back ranks pile in, both units still taking damage.

    3 seconds after the lines meet the shock cav has received 296 gold worth of damage while inflicting 145 gold worth of damage. The main problem is not about turning your back or getting models stuck, the main issue at hand is that the infantry charge is twice as efficient as the shock cavalry charge...
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    I haven't read through the entire 3 pages yet so sorry if someone already mentioned this but

    cycle charging is still effective in my experience just its effective when done with support from another unit.
    Like when you have an infantry unit tie something up and do hammer and anvil cycle charging.

    I think this was done intentionally to prevent that situation where the slower units are just sitting ducks with no way to combat a fast cav army just cycling in over and over and slowly taking the slow inf army apart. Thus making a situation where players may only want inf to fill minimum entity requirement.
    Instead they seem to be promoting diverse unit types that cooperate with each other to get the best results.

    Similar to the way halberds are effective if you use cav to tie something up near your halberds so its harder for the enemies cav/monster to easily pull away from the halberds without having to take rear full charge bonus damage from the cav portion of the engagement when pulling out of that cav/halberd engagement.
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 855

    Asamu said:

    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.

    The thing is, this isn't entirely accurate. On that initial charge, cavalry do have advantages:
    1. They hit first due to longer reach, meaning some infantry models are dying or being knocked prone before even having the opportunity to make strikes against the cav.
    2. Cavalry have a large mobility advantage. Paired with much cheaper infantry to hold that elite infantry in place for just a small amount of time, the cavalry can take a decisive edge by cycle charging the rear or flank of those units
    3. It very much depends on the specific cavalry unit you're talking about, the unit they're fighting, and exactly how they're microed/what formation both are in.

    Bret cav can be made significantly better on the charge by swapping to lance formation as the charge is connecting (so they get the additional charge bonus, but don't get put into the lance formation that lets the unit they're charging wrap around and get flank attacks). Doing this can really help get the most out of cycle charging with them.

    Questing knights, for example, are not shock cav. They're melee cav; they aren't well suited for cycle charging. They have a charge bonus of 41. CW GW have a charge bonus of 26, but also have 30 more models in the unit, which results in the bonuses for charging being comparable for the CW GW (1950 vs 1845 potential bonus charge damage, not factoring in the additional melee attack).
    In the process of pulling out, cav are going to take some hits in the flank/rear as entities turn around; any entities stuck in the infantry formation are going to die without attacking as they try to pull away. Given the relatively small difference in charge bonus, it's really no surprise that questing knights don't get much out of cycle charging in that match up in a 1v1 test.

    By contrast, lance chaos knights, with their 80 charge bonus and worse sustained melee stats, do tend to do better with cycle charging (with the exact timing and method of cycle charging being dependent on the enemy unit, how entities get thrown, etc...).

    In real battles, cav are rarely charging head on into spaghetti line infantry, and infantry are rarely getting clean charges onto cav units. There's a reason competitive bretonnia builds are still regularly bringing 4x questing knights.

    I do think many shock cav units could use a bit of an improvement, probably in terms of more HP, but on the whole, cav isn't really in a bad spot, and lower tier/cheaper cav is generally fantastic value with the prevalence of cheaper infantry and lots of missile units.
    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Problem: wild riders have very low armour and melee defense. You're expecting them to trade well in a situation where they should be expected to trade poorly.
    Their stat distribution does not fit for fighting chaff/low tier infantry; it's about as bad as it gets for that. Savage orcs already have extremely low melee defense, so all that extra melee attack the wild riders are getting has minimal value. Meanwhile, they have nearly the worst possible combination of HP + physical resistance for wild riders. With a non-variable (0 armour, so no rng) effective HP of 108 vs a charge damage of 104, they get left with ~3 HP after an initial charge hit 100% of the time, and can then always make a swing of their own, either after getting up off the ground, or immediately, depending on whether or not they were thrown (and if they were thrown, they aren't an immediate target of anything anymore and are likely to get multiple swings off).

    If you throw 1-2 volleys of arrows into that savage orc unit, or a spell like miasma or flock, before charging though, that HP vs damage dealt issue goes away, and wild riders will be killing them in single hits on the charge and trading extremely efficiently compared to vacuum testing, which is probably a more realistic situation to begin with...

    You're putting wild riders in one of the absolute worst possible match ups (for non-anti-large/lightly armoured units) to put them into when digging further into the numbers, and saying they're not trading efficiently enough, despite the variance in the test with countercharging seeming to be ~30% hp on the wild rider unit, which is way too high of variance for any conclusive statements with a limited number of tests.
    This is actually not quite true, if we look at the mutual charge taking place just at the time the units clash here:

    then you can see that both units receive damage on impact, before any models are knocked back. It's a double-sided trade from the first frame.

    A few seconds later a few models are sent flying, while the back ranks pile in, both units still taking damage.

    3 seconds after the lines meet the shock cav has received 296 gold worth of damage while inflicting 145 gold worth of damage. The main problem is not about turning your back or getting models stuck, the main issue at hand is that the infantry charge is twice as efficient as the shock cavalry charge...
    this... this is exactly my point on loose formation isn't it? you just stated my point perfectly. now try tight formation because you keep testing vs loose formation units (chaos warrior GW, savage orcs, marauders)
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 5,126




    I'd suggest the real solution is to increase Cav SPLASH DAMAGE on the charge but not on halberd or AL cav

    I second this.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,861

    eumaies said:

    As a reminder this is a human v human full spaghetti lines test of wild riders Vs savage orcs. Two on the left with charging braced, two on the right Vs countercharging orcs. Sensible cycle charging none of this one second stuff.

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

    Vs braced the outcome is fine, vs counter charging i do not think it is fine, the cost difference is 550g vs 1200g here, seems save orcs will 100% of the up trade into wild riders if they charge, i would understand spearmen or something at the very least.
    Ive largely been observing this debate take place in both threads. However,

    No one would suggest a unit with low Hp, md and model count would want to receive a charge from savage orcs, it's the perfect victim for them. As are the savage orcs for the cav, but they have more models and Hp.

    Yes the cav get a charge off as well on the savage orcs, however.

    Cav overkill on the charge per attack.

    Savage orcs don't overkill so much but do so enough to kill models, the higher number of savage Orc models mean each cav model is fighting 2-3 orcs. So at least one Orc will strike back, and with its Cb active it will likely kill a cav model.

    Hence the trade. Its usually 1 cav vs 1-3 infantry, which is also a reflection on why formed infantry were a counter to cav.


    I'd suggest the real solution is to increase Cav SPLASH DAMAGE on the charge but not on halberd or AL cav
    That is one way to buff cav but I don't think that the problem is with cav dealing too little damage on the charge. In order for blazing suns to trade cost efficiently on a mutual charge vs marauder gw they would need to kill the unit in a single charge, which doesn't feel like a good direction to go imo. The real problem is that the gw infantry deal way too much return damage on mutual charges. It's fine that they receive 200 gold worth of damage when being charged, but they generate 500+ gold damage on their counter-charge is what breaks the equation.... That is the reason why it becomes beneficial for shock cav to stay and grind instead of doing a hit-and-run like we are used to shock cav working, because then they give the infantry the chance to charge them again. It's super-backwards! The shock cav is fearing the infantry charge, not vice-versa.
    I think an increased splash may increase damage dealt and therefore either kill or stagger the models they hit, preventing being hit in return. Then we would see shock cavalry with increased ability to charge with less return damage.

    I do feel however that loose formation should be less able to strike back than tight formation and this would need adjusting in other areas but this brings it up
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    increasing splash damage would make cavalry even better at murdering archers which they are already plenty good at, and cavalry does not need a buff in general.
    Increasing melee defense and decreasing weapon strength (and maybe MA) could be a balanced way of improving the exchange of charges since WS and MA dont matter much on the charge while MD does vs opponents with low to medium charge bonus.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,861
    RawSugar said:

    increasing splash damage would make cavalry even better at murdering archers which they are already plentt good at, and cavalry does not need a buff in general.
    Increasing melee defense and decreasing weapon strength (and maybe MA) could be a balanced way of improving the exchange of charges since WS and MA dont matter much on the charge while MD does vs opponents with low to medium charge bonus.

    We already have that. Grail guardians, chaos Knights, empire Knights.

    They don't function like cav
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited April 2021
    grail guardians are kinda like that but they have traded charge bonus for MD, im saying WS/MA for MD. its a vastly different unit, and one that gives you what you seem to want; a hyperefficient unit if microed and allowed to charge, but with the downside such a unit needs; very bad if mismanaged or caught in melee. Its closer to chariots.

    If you want cavalry units to be able to beat infantry in head on charges thats the kind of tradeoffs that are needed. cavalry cant just be better and faster melee units that dont do well against antilarge.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,326
    Cavalry is performing fine. The examples in op are all cherry-picked and are comparing different cav to how they trade into different infantry in random hodge-podge.

    For there to even begin to be an argument worth assessing here, let's see how ALL the cav in the OP perform VS Savage Orcs etc, not just Wild Riders. Why are Wild Riders the only unit tested into Savage Orcs and this used as an example of broken cav?

    I suspect from my AI testing that this whole premise would collapse very quickly once this pretty basic testing methodology is used (I.e. Test units against the same units in the same conditions)
Sign In or Register to comment.