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

What is cavalry balance to you?

griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,102
Regardless of the current state of the game what do you consider to be the appropriate balance for shock cavalry in general?

Question #
1. Do you think shock Cavalry should beat all infantry(smaller) units besides halberds/spears/anti large in a head on 1v1 fight while cycle charging(or not) if cost is equal?

2. What if any melee unit types do you think should be able to pose a threat to shock cav? Should spears, halberds and anti large be the only melee infantry types to pose a threat to shock cavalry?

3. How should the game avoid a balance state where only mobile units have value in melee? (IE part of the reason tournaments in the past had to make rules outside of the game balance and come up with their own cycle charge rules?)
«1345

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    edited April 27
    really anything where the units engage with each other in a frontal charge and each does a reasonable amount of damage is ok with me. But in a perfect world shock-oriented cav would out-trade a shock-oriented inf of the same type by a modest margin.

    I don't know how the *game* can prevent some inf in a unit from landing attacks while getting charged and not others; seems very tricky/fraught. I think a simple fix would be a little more hp for cav recognizing that for a number of reasons they're more prone to attrition damage than they used to be.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,147
    1. The way it has always been was fine. On the actual charge, the shock cav should use their long lances, impact plus momentum and huge cb to trade very well vs any infantry (or cav for that matter) with short weapons and no cdvl. But, after the charge has trailed off, armored cav should be losing sustained melee vs ap infantry. This includes mutual charges, but infantry should still do very good damage on their charge of they don't get charged back. On a free charge they are not stopped by the lance length, impact or momentum and then they should deal full damage like now. Ie spears are for soaking a charge, handweapon infantry are for piling in and dealing damage. The only mechanism that will achieve that I suspect is more knockdowns on the charge or some kind of hit first mechanism for lances.
    2.braced inf with cdvl should be safe from the cb like now, and any inf would trade up in sustained battle. On a free charge, axes should still be devastating.
    3. The cycle charging rules for cav has been more and more relaxed and the later iterations of banner rules before this hit had already removed all rules preventing cycle charging with cav. You are completely free to cycle cavalry, only sems are not.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 528
    1. No. The whole concept of using shock cav to pick up "freebies" on the frontline by effectively bouncing off before any attack animations could occur was not a good gameplay experience. Maybe against pure chaff (let's say 300 cost and below) it would be okay, but nothing more expensive than that. But tbh that behaviour is likely never to return regardless of what fixes are applied by the balance team to fix the latest issues. The game was not intended for infantry to be knocked about as badly as they were by large for the majority of its lifecycle, so player's are going to need to update their expectations on how these interactions occur. One thing I have noticed even in the current meta is that by the mid/late game when infantry has dropped a bunch of models (and cav has as well) the ability for cav to batter around infantry returns which is to me a desirable balance. But in general cavalry should have a very difficult time wearing down large numbers of infantry without monster/ranged/infantry/magic support.


    2. This varies and really depends on the unit. Whether or not a unit is "shock cav" isn't really the relevant differentiator here. The units that will pose a threat to Dragon Princes are going to be very different to the units that pose a threat to Wild Riders. This was a glaring issue with the shock cav vs infantry test in the other thread, low ap Savage Orcs charging Wild Riders was over-extrapolated to say the shock cav vs infantry interaction was broken without testing how something (cheaper) like Empire Knights/Silver Helms/KOTR did in the same circumstances. For me it is more about the models remaining as a relevant metric rather than what the unit card calls the unit. So if Wild Riders charge Savage Orcs with both at full HP, likely not a good idea and favours the Savage Orc. But if 50% hp/model Wild Riders charge 50% hp/model Savage Orcs the trade should be more favourable.

    3. Already being done over the last few patches (and we have enjoyed significantly improved gameplay because of it). Knockback fixes, variety of snares and slows (which need to be appropriately balanced, noone wants too many or too powerful one's to be available), range units do relatively better vs lower hp mobility than higher hp static builds, etc.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general point, I think that the current situation is a positive that needs some tweaks not an outright balancing disaster.

    Shock Cavalry has always been a far more attractive option than sustained combat cavalry because the downsides of using Shock cavalry were so few when it was basically a test of if you could click quick enough to deny any unit interaction. Shock Cavalry still has a very clear role imo (devastating charges/surrounds on out of position units, annihilating static range that it compromises, destroying skirmishers, smashing into units that are engaged with infnatry/monsters/chariots/etc). But it was always fairly stupid that shock cavalry would be running and bouncing off a frontline with virtually no support required in the early game. It led to builds and playstyles that were too heavy on the Real-time and too light on the Strategy. But now taking combat cavalry actually serves a clear purpose. Do you want the option of face charging a full health Chaos Warrior? Then you might be better off with a Cold One Dread Knights than a Cold One Knights. Want insurance that you will have a sustainable anvil unit for your monsters or other shock cav to synergise with? Then maybe a Grail Guardian is the way to go etc etc.
  • griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,102
    edited April 27
    Disclaimer(what I'm describing will often be what I want in my ideal balance and may not reflect current balance)

    My answers to the questions

    1. No I don't think so....not 1v1...(IE chaos knights lances 1500 charging into 1450 chosenGW head on) I think ideally other melee infantry units besides spears/halberds should also pose a threat to cav 1v1. I am still not sure on how big a threat but in general certain non spear/halberd melee infantry should be threatening to cav and cav should also be threatening to certain non spear/halberd infantry depending on how the engagement is executed.

    2. Depending on the cavalry type offensive unit types corresponding to that cavs armor should pose a threat in the right engagement set up. IE I believe offensive 2h ap infantry should be able to pose a threat to cav with high armor and low MD with the right engagement. I also believe Cav should be able to pose a threat back to them as well with the proper engagement strategy. As well as many other anti large units like anti large monsters and anti large monstrous infantry....but its important for non mobile units to be threatening as well.

    3. I believe numbers should matter here similarly to how monstrous infantry perform much better on top of chaff that evens the numbers out a bit for them. As an example lets take Hammerers (75 models). Chaos knights/w lances(45 model) imo should not want to charge straight into the face of hammerers because it would be dangerous and not the best trade for them. Still the chaos knights w lances should be a big threat to hammerers too because if the player ties the hammerers up in melee with marauders w great weapon(or some other chaff potentially even mobile cav chaff) and hits in side or back with knights they should do well and potentially cycle charge much better with marauders w great weapons(or other chaff) holding them up allowing this combo to dispose of the unit faster than most non charge cav melee grinds would.

    So in the version of balance I have in my mind Cavalry doesn't just roll over all non halberd/spear infantry but they are dangerous because of the strategy of

    Defeat in detail.
    IE cavalry can quickly roll over to weak parts of enemy formation and overload them before slower parts of enemy army can respond from other side of the formation..... but they need to bring disproportionate amounts of the players points (in comparison to enemy points in that area/engagement) to bear in a small area to do it.

    Disclaimer: This is not to say that the current balance state is fine or is not fine. I don't actually know how much damage every infantry unit should be able to do back when counter charging cav. I only believe whatever the number is that for example expensive heavy armored shock cav shouldn't want to charge into the face of AP offensive infantry alone because they should want a better trade.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27
    cavalry should beat ranged and be beaten by infantry, this mechanic should be almost as important as armor AP and anti-x, so;

    1: definitely not, only when clearly outmatching the infantry fx armor vs nonAP, as well as tier/MA/MD. This was also generally the way it worked before except for perfect micro. generally cavalry would lose by a good deal against same tier - except for when only a few units on either side when cavalry might bugabuse. Thats how it should be (for all instances, not just when imperfect micro), for cavalry to trade up vs infantry it should need to outmaneuver. head to head charges is not outmaneuvering, its just bugabuse.

    2: favored: same tier, AL all tiers, GW a tier down (all tiers for heavy armor cavalry). disfavored nonAL chaff, and nonAL infantry of most tiers/quality rear or flankcharged

    3: make it generally a bad idea to head to head fight higher tier infantry...
    Post edited by RawSugar on
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 634
    edited April 27
    I cant' really answer questions 1 and 2 because I disagree with the premises... hope my answer helps for question 3. I don't think shock cavalry lends itself very well to "who beats who" or "cost effective trade" questions, besides cav vs cav engagement. It works fine for 2 infantry units grinding it out, but shock cavalry is a type of unit that relies most on synergy, using support as anvil or weakening a target from range. We can discuss how much damage should be dealt and taken on a charge vs infantry, how much damage should be taken pulling back, but measuring shock cav vs infantry in isolation, e.g. by rinse-and-repeat cycle charging, does not work. Maybe in some cases a shock cav unit loses when charging an infantry unit at full health, but wins vs 2 infantry units at half health (horatii and curiatii) or already engaged.

    Besides that, for me the question reads more as about design than balance, as some individual cav are still generally considered very good and other not so much.

    As a personal design preference, but I'm not fond of "heavy" shock cav performance relying too much cycle charging. I like when it is a bit more about charging, a bit less about cycle-charging. It means devastating impact but taking more damage on retreat, thus aiming at breaking a target on the first charge, or needing support if enemy resistance was wrongly evaluated and it goes into a grind. I would say endless cycle charging on the same target is a form of grinding rather than a "shock" tactic.

    In that regard the current state is not bad and I don't want a full rework, but I wouldn't mind if heavy shock cavalry dealt a little bit more damage on the charge, and took a bit more damage on retreat (smaller rotation speed and acceleration). Elven shock cavalry could have an easier time pulling out, relying more on cycle charging than heavier variants. But it pains me when brutal Chaos Knights or honorable Grail Knights do mostly hit-and-run, showing their backs to the enemy half the time ...

    Going to current specific issues, we will see after the bug fix, currently shock infantry deals too much damage to shock cavalry on the charge, but I wouldn't mind if it was a very bad idea to pull out from shock infantry hoping to rinse-charge it.

    The other big issue currently is cav unit cohesion vs messed-up infantry formations. I like that pulling back from infantry is generally more punished than before with some models trapped, but specifically, charging disorganized infantry is pure suicide, the cav models spread all over the place and get trapped way too much. They need to stay closer together, something that was done for pegasi units a while back.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,847
    I think that charge defense mechanics should be made stronger/more elaborate.


    Make charge defense and resistance into something different,
    with charge defense also giving the unit its charge bonus when braced.

    I think there should be 3 levels of charge defence;

    Basic; negates 35% of the charge bonus, adds 35% of the units own charge bonus when braced
    Advanced; negates/ adds 65%
    Expert; negates/ adds all charge bonus

    This would only be for polearm units tho.

    Units with shields would get a charge resistance tho, maybe based on the shield value?
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27
    its pretty wild so many people seem to think infantry should just be a punching bag for fast melee. If their only favorble matchup is against spear why would ever pick higher tier infantry? for that matter foregoing nonspear infantry altogether and just have ranged beat all infantry, with ome spear infantry and cavalry creating screen seems like the better plan....
    For infantry to be balanced they have to be allrounders, good vs spears sure, but also decent and slightly favored vs fast melee. otherwise they're just walking punching bags...
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,847
    RawSugar said:

    its pretty wild so many people seem to think infantry should just be a punching bag for fast melee. If their only favorble matchup is against spear why would ever pick higher tier infantry? for that matter foregoing nonspear infantry altogether and just have ranged beat all infantry, with ome spear infantry and cavalry creating screen seems like the better plan....
    For infantry to be balanced they have to be allrounders, good vs spears sure, but also decent and slightly favored vs fast melee. otherwise they're just walking punching bags...

    Maybe infantry should stagger units more ?
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 528
    To revisit my previous answer somewhat, I think CA (or Duck and Co) have shown pretty consistently good judgement in balancing mechanics and unit interactions and trust they'll find a good balance here.

    A lot of it comes down to game design stuff that we can't know what the best outcome would be. Before the knockback bug was fixed, animations were almost considered to be a part of balance. We now know that they weren't and "powerful animations" were just cosmetic decisions that were lucky enough to allow damage avoidance by denying unit interactions.

    In the same vein, which way does this bug go? Are infantry VS cavalry charges now bugged, or have they now been fixed as a side effect of fixing the Great Stag bug?

    My preference is the same as with the knockback bugs, fix the bug so that units interact in melee and then tweak the stats as required. This makes balance much easier in the long term even if there is some short term rebalancing pain.

    If some cav need more armour/md/physical resist/price drop etc then it is far easier to balance than previously where a sort of "hidden" defensive capability of cav was that if they withdrew quickly enough they wouldn't take damage on a charge at all, regardless of the stats of the unit charging them back. I.e. Whether or not your shock cav was armoured/ap/phys resistant/etc made no real difference, all that mattered was speed.

    I also think that the more tattered the cavalry and infantry units become, the more favourable frontal charging should be for the cavalry. A 75/90 model infantry unit charging a 24/45 model cav unit should favour the infantry (although statlines etc should remain relevant. Low ap Savage Orcs should still be doing relatively poorly VS Dragon Princes) but as models drop and infantry lose depth the engagements should increasingly tilt in the cavalries favour. This is exactly how it worked in real life history in regards to cavalry as well. Not to say you can have the occasional worldbeater ROR or unique shock cav unit that thrives in that situation, but just as a general rule.
  • Otto_von_SaxonyOtto_von_Saxony Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 10
    Since Warhammer is largely renaissance tech level Cavalry should trade well into mobile infantry and worse into any braced infantry unit. Now there are degrees to that:

    Category 1: Polearms - extremely brutal to the frontal charges, bring back Atilla's charge damage reflection for braced polearms charged to the front. Side charges should be more of a draw. Rear should be utterly devastating for the polearms (i.e. they die)

    Category 2: Shielded Handweapon - resistant to frontal charges while braced, taking little damage but also doing little in return (trading cost efficiently though). Side and rear charges more advantageous to cavalry.

    Category 3: Greatweapon - heavy losses on frontal charge while braced but heavy damage back to the cavalry 2-5 seconds after impact. Full hp cavalry into full hp braced GW should be mutually assured destruction. Side or rear cavalry doing better.

    Category 4: unshielded handweapons - catastrophic losses on charge and mediocre retaliation before the cavalry withdraw.

    General trends:

    Braced: all infantry do better
    Moving: all infantry do worse
    Charging: half way in between (so worse from current)

    Loose formation: infantry do worse and really should take significant impact damage from Cavalry (i.e. getting trampled by a horse) - basically mass should be reduced significantly.

    Tight formation: infantry should take little to no impact damage - basically mass should be notably higher.

    A further change I would add loose/tight formation to all infantry units to give infantry some choices for counter play vs cavalry/missile units. Loose formation being better vs archers and tight better vs cavalry.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,147

    To revisit my previous answer somewhat, I think CA (or Duck and Co) have shown pretty consistently good judgement in balancing mechanics and unit interactions and trust they'll find a good balance here.

    A lot of it comes down to game design stuff that we can't know what the best outcome would be. Before the knockback bug was fixed, animations were almost considered to be a part of balance. We now know that they weren't and "powerful animations" were just cosmetic decisions that were lucky enough to allow damage avoidance by denying unit interactions.

    In the same vein, which way does this bug go? Are infantry VS cavalry charges now bugged, or have they now been fixed as a side effect of fixing the Great Stag bug?

    My preference is the same as with the knockback bugs, fix the bug so that units interact in melee and then tweak the stats as required. This makes balance much easier in the long term even if there is some short term rebalancing pain.

    If some cav need more armour/md/physical resist/price drop etc then it is far easier to balance than previously where a sort of "hidden" defensive capability of cav was that if they withdrew quickly enough they wouldn't take damage on a charge at all, regardless of the stats of the unit charging them back. I.e. Whether or not your shock cav was armoured/ap/phys resistant/etc made no real difference, all that mattered was speed.

    I also think that the more tattered the cavalry and infantry units become, the more favourable frontal charging should be for the cavalry. A 75/90 model infantry unit charging a 24/45 model cav unit should favour the infantry (although statlines etc should remain relevant. Low ap Savage Orcs should still be doing relatively poorly VS Dragon Princes) but as models drop and infantry lose depth the engagements should increasingly tilt in the cavalries favour. This is exactly how it worked in real life history in regards to cavalry as well. Not to say you can have the occasional worldbeater ROR or unique shock cav unit that thrives in that situation, but just as a general rule.

    I disagree with a lot of things here.....

    Firstly, animations are still in the game and they don't care the least about unit cohesion or mass changes. The "bug fix" was just a grace period after a hit reaction test that prevented the same test to be rapidly repeated until it failed. Animations are still very much dictating interactions...

    That aside though, in general I have always tried to argue that removing the importance of mass/momentum/impact/knockbacks is just dumbing down the game and doesn't necessarily make it easier to balance. In the case of cav vs infantry interactions we actually need the infantry to register fewer hits on the charge to mimic that shock cavalry has a big advantage on the charge due to length of lances, momentum, impact and way bigger CB.... but, there is nothing wrong with shock infantry dealing a big damage burst to other infantry (which is their main application) or on a free charge vs cav where the length/momentum/cb etc is not used against them.

    By having a working knockback mechanics and/or animation interactions, we can achieve such balance, which is not only unit type vs unit type balancing, but also situational balancing like with free charges. There is nothing to gain imo by making everything into bumper cars with stats, it's by properly working animations and interactions including momentum and mass that we get a truly "organic" experience. The key is just to make them work properly without too many "forced" interactions, which I have a completely unfounded suspicion that the stag fix might be... a bit of a band-aid fix to force that interaction to register the way they wanted that spilled over to other interactions where it did not have a desired effect.

    The problem with buffing stats and HP and what not of cavalry is that that will make them also much better at running fast murderball blobs.... that's something I want even less.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27

    Since Warhammer is largely renaissance tech level Cavalry should trade well into mobile infantry and worse into any braced infantry unit. Now there are degrees to that:

    .

    first; this is a fantasy game, historical balances doesnt mean anything. secondly if the relation with infantry should be more favorable, then the relation with ranged should be less favorable. right now you can run your fast melee straight into volleys and come out largely unscathed and proceed to murder the ranged. Make that much less onesided, needing to avoid volleys on the approach, and you can have cavalry beat most types of infantry, with infantry probably getting better shields.
    But fast melee being extremely favored vs ranged AND favored vs most infantry isnt balance.

    Thats a completely different game, more in line with some of the historical titles ive played before hitpoints etc. in this game cavalry has a huge edge vs ranged, that has to come at a cost, the cost is and has always been that cavalry needs to outmaneuver infantry. before , due to a bug , outmaneuvering simply meant moving away after charging, which with enough micro/few enough units in endgame was a huge advantage. that bug has been fixed and the game is working as it should be.
    (more or less, the advantage in head to head charges should be slight, even for GW units. im not 100% sure what the numbers are)

    Edit: letting RNGesus/AI general mod take the wheel questing knights narrowly beat greatswords gold for gold. thats pretty much where id want the balance to be, maybe slightly more in favor of QK
    Post edited by RawSugar on
  • Witch_KingWitch_King Registered Users Posts: 75
    1: Shock cavalry should beat every infantry unit of the same tier without charge defence, ideally after just one charge if the matchup is very favourable.

    2: Anti large infantry should definitely be the greatest threat to shock cav. You charge into a wall of halberds? Goodbye to at least half of your unit. Surrounded by elite spears? I hope you have recruitment buildings near. Charge damage reflection is a must have.

    3. Ideally every single tactic is counterable, practically some tactics will be stronger than others because of game balance. I'm sure CA will make a good job.

    The core idea is: shock cav is very good in some situations and terrible in others.
    On the battlefield this means you have to wait for true opportunites to strike rather than thinking "i charge the lances anyways but i must remember to cycle charge shortly after".

    The reward for a well timed charge it's untold damage and leadership loss, you will feel good because your unit performance is tied to timing and choices, only partially to their raw power, leading to more dynamic and satisfying battles.

    Now to the negative: bringing shock cavalry in every fight will not be a good idea because, for example, the enemy race has very strong anti-large infantry and it's a core component of their army, or it has artillery very powerful against large units, or it has a superior cav that will destroy yours, or the map has chokepoints and you can't flank...

    There can be any number or reasons but the most important thing is that you aren't bringing shock cav because the tactical situation isn't good for it, not because they perform badly if not microed perfecly.

    To summarize, shock cavalry is very powerful but easy to counter, it's effectiveness tied to players' timing and the opportunities that arise as the battle rather than the raw power of stats.




  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 31,229

    1: Shock cavalry should beat every infantry unit of the same tier without charge defence, ideally after just one charge if the matchup is very favourable.

    Hope this suggestion gets ignored with prejudice because that would utterly ruin the game and make it all about high mass units again.

  • Witch_KingWitch_King Registered Users Posts: 75

    1: Shock cavalry should beat every infantry unit of the same tier without charge defence, ideally after just one charge if the matchup is very favourable.

    Hope this suggestion gets ignored with prejudice because that would utterly ruin the game and make it all about high mass units again.
    Again? I played only 3K and Warhammer, did previous CA games have insanely overpowered shock cav?
  • WitchbladeWitchblade Registered Users Posts: 986
    I think the following should hold true at least:
    - Units with charge defense should perform better when bracing than when charging against cavalry.
    - Charging cavalry into a unit with charge defense and anti-large should amount to suicide.
    - Cavalry should lose to equivalent cost infantry of almost any kind in a prolonged fight.
    - Getting charged by shock cavalry without charge defense should hurt. A lot. Almost all infantry units without anti-large up to equivalent cost should be losing the fight over the first 15 seconds against shock cavalry.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 465
    I think light cavalry/lower tier shouldn’t trade well into cycle charges from the front elite cavalry should have more of a break unless there charging into elite infantry regardless of it being anti large or not sword masters really shouldn’t be so bad that they can’t trade when braced if they aren’t no problem cheaper antilarge also should still be punished by elite cavalry if it isn’t braced.

    Not really certain about implementation we’ve made progress but still feels off for me.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,283
    question 1: Should shock cavalry beat all non-anti large infantry?

    Of equal value? No. Speed should be factored into the cost, so in a straight fight the slower infantry should come out on top. Assuming it doesn't have any other sort of special anti-infantry value of course.

    However, what you don't want are normal infantry units that are significantly cheaper coming out on top or badly bloodying an expensive shock-cav. For example, Dryads vs Hex Wraith matchup worries me because the Dryad is massively cheaper, but practically trades evenly.

    2. Should only anti-large spears/halberds counter shock-cav?


    No. equal or higher priced units should be able to take a charge on the chin and eventually come out on top. Niche specialty units with interesting abilities should also be around that are surprisingly effective against cav. Units supported by spells should also be able to beat off a shock-cav.

    Normal infantry designed to take on other infantry should not be great against cavalry though.

    3. How should we better balance mobility?


    Steps should be made to ensure that rapid-fire cycle charging is not rewarded. IMO it's gamey and too micro-intensive. Perhaps making the charge bonus only drop to +25% before zeroing out, rather than it just being a completely linear decline. Would encourage people to stick it out for the full charge duration.

    Beyond that, making sure that equal value generic infantry are actually a little tougher head on than a more mobile unit of the same price. (500 gold infantry beats 500 gold cav)

    I would also like to make mass matter more when two units are charging at one another. The larger mass unit should really punish a low-mass unit that is trying to counter charge them. This happens to an extent, but the smaller unit still does a lot more damage from their own charge bonus. I think the impact damage needs to be upped.

    I suppose how you prevent mass mobility from taking over is you make terrain more valuable. Terrain bonuses and capture points. Muddy ground would be nice for draining vigor and slowing units down. Maybe speed up vigor replenishment so an army thats buzzing all around at warp speed is paying for it, while a defensive infantry focused build can rest up and recover its strength.

    That said you don't want to encourage turtling as that's the worst outcome.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27
    dryads are magic damage. even with fire and magic damage that should be a really good target for them. Blood knights break them without losing a step, hexwraith should struggle against magic damage.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,000
    Question #
    1. Do you think shock Cavalry should beat all infantry(smaller) units besides halberds/spears/anti large in a head on 1v1 fight while cycle charging(or not) if cost is equal?

    In theory yes, but only slightly favor to the cav. the shock cav is at its environment, cycle charging non anti large inf, the infantry is not, so it should be in disadvantage. But a lot of previous examples, the shock cav cost +400-500 gold more than the inf.

    In practice, this is hard in early -mid game, range, spells, and counter charge from enemy cav/monster can easily ruin your frontal charge even against non anti large inf. The idea that some players conjure up that you can "freely" and "easily" cycle charge ping pong in the front is false. It's not easy to pull off. Not to mention, cav even in previous mass change can get model stuck.



    2. What if any melee unit types do you think should be able to pose a threat to shock cav? Should spears, halberds and anti large be the only melee infantry types to pose a threat to shock cavalry?
    3.
    Monsters, anti cav cav, Extremely tanky inf like 100+ armor can actually do reasonably well against non ap shock cav. They dont take much damage, can bog the models down and kill it.

    3. How should the game avoid a balance state where only mobile units have value in melee? (IE part of the reason tournaments in the past had to make rules outside of the game balance and come up with their own cycle charge rules?)


    Disagree with that, infantry has still been essential.
  • Otto_von_SaxonyOtto_von_Saxony Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 10
    RawSugar said:

    Since Warhammer is largely renaissance tech level Cavalry should trade well into mobile infantry and worse into any braced infantry unit. Now there are degrees to that:

    .

    first; this is a fantasy game, historical balances doesnt mean anything. secondly if the relation with infantry should be more favorable, then the relation with ranged should be less favorable. right now you can run your fast melee straight into volleys and come out largely unscathed and proceed to murder the ranged. Make that much less onesided, needing to avoid volleys on the approach, and you can have cavalry beat most types of infantry, with infantry probably getting better shields.
    But fast melee being extremely favored vs ranged AND favored vs most infantry isnt balance.

    Thats a completely different game, more in line with some of the historical titles ive played before hitpoints etc. in this game cavalry has a huge edge vs ranged, that has to come at a cost, the cost is and has always been that cavalry needs to outmaneuver infantry. before , due to a bug , outmaneuvering simply meant moving away after charging, which with enough micro/few enough units in endgame was a huge advantage. that bug has been fixed and the game is working as it should be.
    (more or less, the advantage in head to head charges should be slight, even for GW units. im not 100% sure what the numbers are)
    I dont know what your obsession with oversimplifying unit types into infantry/fast melee/ranged is - you can and should have more complexity than that in a strategy game.

    Also the fact that its a fantasy game doesnt mean we should ignore physics and assume a 1800lb cavalry man doesnt trample a 200lbs guy in loose order.

    But to assuage your concerns my conceptualization is basically:

    1. Shielded/polearm/GW infantry trade better than currently when braced.
    2. All trade worse than currently when mutual charging.
    3. The same if caught while running around.

    So loosely:

    Melee Cavalry > Shock Cavalry = GW inf > shielded handweapon inf > unshielded handweapon inf > polearms > Melee Cavalry

    Of course unit quality throws a wrench in that so a 1500 gold shock cav should beat 800 gold GW inf but not as solidly as 800 gold unshielded handweapon inf. Conversely 1600 gold CHGW should beat 850 gold empire knights. However 1600 gold CHGW vs theoretical 1600 gold shock cavalry cycle charging should result in mutual annihilation (without cycle charging CHGW should win decisively).
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27
    Melee Cavalry > Shock Cavalry = GW inf > shielded handweapon inf > unshielded handweapon inf > polearms > Melee Cavalry

    The problem with this is that while in a vacuum this is fine and balanced, the game has another category ranged. so basically in your conception cavalry and infantry is balanced with various anti L/I tweaking the matchups but cavalry absolutely destroys ranged and infantry is somewhat to heavily disadvantaged vs ranged. This. is. not. balance.
    Speed should come at a cost. even just in melee your balance ignores the tactical advantage speed offers if you want cavalry to trade evenly 1v1 with infantry (favored vs some, disfavored vs others). add to that that cavalry in this game hard. counters. ranged its just mindboggling to me that you dont see how hugely unbalanced this is.

    slow melee beats fast melee slightly.
    antilarge slow melee beats fast melee by a lot, loses by a good deal vs nonspecialized slow melee
    fast melee beats ranged by a lot, loses to slow melee slightly and antilarge slow melee by a lot

    this is balance. especially because of how tier interacts with ranged. infantry cant gain an edge vs other melee without becoming much more vulnerable to ranged, cavalry/fast melee however counters ranged and can gain a melee advantage great enough it will beat chaff while still being very strong against ranged.

    If you want fast melee that beats infantry look to stuff like chariots or mammoth for the kind of weakness that kind of unit needs to be balanced (added mammoths because currently chariots are a little weak - altho still able to be really good w enough micro)
  • Otto_von_SaxonyOtto_von_Saxony Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 10
    RawSugar said:

    Melee Cavalry > Shock Cavalry = GW inf > shielded handweapon inf > unshielded handweapon inf > polearms > Melee Cavalry

    The problem with this is that while in a vacuum this is fine and balanced, the game has another category ranged. so basically in your conception cavalry and infantry is balanced with various anti L/I tweaking the matchups but cavalry absolutely destroys ranged and infantry is somewhat to heavily disadvantaged vs ranged. This. is. not. balance.
    Speed should come at a cost. even just in melee your balance ignores the tactical advantage speed offers if you want cavalry to trade evenly 1v1 with infantry (favored vs some, disfavored vs others). add to that that cavalry in this game hard. counters. ranged its just mindboggling to me that you dont see how hugely unbalanced this is.

    slow melee beats fast melee slightly.
    antilarge slow melee beats fast melee by a lot, loses by a good deal vs nonspecialized slow melee
    fast melee beats ranged by a lot, loses to slow melee slightly and antilarge slow melee by a lot

    this is balance. especially because of how tier interacts with ranged. infantry cant gain an edge vs other melee without becoming much more vulnerable to ranged, cavalry/fast melee however counters ranged and can gain a melee advantage great enough it will beat chaff while still being very strong against ranged.

    If you want fast melee that beats infantry look to stuff like chariots or mammoth for the kind of weakness that kind of unit needs to be balanced (added mammoths because currently chariots are a little weak - altho still able to be really good w enough micro)

    I excluded range because I would need a more complicated graphic then.

    Generally speaking though ranged is not hard countered per se by cavalry in pretty much any RTS game or IRL. Melee vs archers is a critical mass problem where melee counter range below said mass but are countered above said mass. What factors there is durability/speed vs dps and while that generally favours cavalry on a unit per unit basis, cavalry costs more so gold per gold its not strictly true.

    But in general balance isnt x beats y beat z. Rock paper scissors isnt the only way to balance results. Balance, particularly in a prebuilt army game is about factions having an equal chance of winning and unit types having value being brought. Are melee infantry primarily useful defending range/attacking other infantry? Yes. Is that inherently imbalanced? No.

    At this point though it is impractical to explain via text alone and I dont have the ability to create some graphics atm showing a greater conceptualization of unit counters.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631

    RawSugar said:

    Melee Cavalry > Shock Cavalry = GW inf > shielded handweapon inf > unshielded handweapon inf > polearms > Melee Cavalry

    The problem with this is that while in a vacuum this is fine and balanced, the game has another category ranged. so basically in your conception cavalry and infantry is balanced with various anti L/I tweaking the matchups but cavalry absolutely destroys ranged and infantry is somewhat to heavily disadvantaged vs ranged. This. is. not. balance.
    Speed should come at a cost. even just in melee your balance ignores the tactical advantage speed offers if you want cavalry to trade evenly 1v1 with infantry (favored vs some, disfavored vs others). add to that that cavalry in this game hard. counters. ranged its just mindboggling to me that you dont see how hugely unbalanced this is.

    slow melee beats fast melee slightly.
    antilarge slow melee beats fast melee by a lot, loses by a good deal vs nonspecialized slow melee
    fast melee beats ranged by a lot, loses to slow melee slightly and antilarge slow melee by a lot

    this is balance. especially because of how tier interacts with ranged. infantry cant gain an edge vs other melee without becoming much more vulnerable to ranged, cavalry/fast melee however counters ranged and can gain a melee advantage great enough it will beat chaff while still being very strong against ranged.

    If you want fast melee that beats infantry look to stuff like chariots or mammoth for the kind of weakness that kind of unit needs to be balanced (added mammoths because currently chariots are a little weak - altho still able to be really good w enough micro)

    I excluded range because I would need a more complicated graphic then.

    Generally speaking though ranged is not hard countered per se by cavalry in pretty much any RTS game or IRL. Melee vs archers is a critical mass problem where melee counter range below said mass but are countered above said mass. What factors there is durability/speed vs dps and while that generally favours cavalry on a unit per unit basis, cavalry costs more so gold per gold its not strictly true.

    But in general balance isnt x beats y beat z. Rock paper scissors isnt the only way to balance results. Balance, particularly in a prebuilt army game is about factions having an equal chance of winning and unit types having value being brought. Are melee infantry primarily useful defending range/attacking other infantry? Yes. Is that inherently imbalanced? No.

    At this point though it is impractical to explain via text alone and I dont have the ability to create some graphics atm showing a greater conceptualization of unit counters.
    at same mass/cost cavalry is heavily favored vs ranged. pretty much every type can beat other types if outcosting them by enough, that doesnt really matter for balance. The balance of this game is really intricate and the rock paper scissor is across several dimensions including antiL/I, armor/AP, shields, tier, aoe/models etcetc...but the basic, most decisive dimension is still ranged, slow and fast melee. And those other dimension dont free cavalry from being balanced along the basic one. Rock paper scissor isnt the only concern when balancing, synergy is also important, but it is the primary one since all units have synergy, armorvalue etcetc
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27
    apparently my response was too controversial to be posted...trying without the quote...

    at same mass/cost cavalry is heavily favored vs ranged. pretty much every type can beat other types if outcosting them by enough, that doesnt really matter for balance. The balance of this game is really intricate and the rock paper scissor is across several dimensions including antiL/I, armor/AP, shields, tier, aoe/models etcetc...but the basic, most decisive dimension is still ranged, slow and fast melee. And those other dimension dont free cavalry from being balanced along the basic one. Rock paper scissor isnt the only concern when balancing, synergy is also important, but it is the primary one since all units have synergy, armorvalue etcetc
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,283
    edited April 27
    RawSugar said:

    dryads are magic damage. even with fire and magic damage that should be a really good target for them. Blood knights break them without losing a step, hexwraith should struggle against magic damage.

    Dryads are 550 gold units vs 1400 gold Hex Wraiths. They fight them nearly to a draw and in my test they even won a fight when I was controlling them. Regardless of their damage type, that price gap is way too large for an imperfect counter like the dryad to win in an open field.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    edited April 27
    Jman5 said:

    RawSugar said:

    dryads are magic damage. even with fire and magic damage that should be a really good target for them. Blood knights break them without losing a step, hexwraith should struggle against magic damage.

    Dryads are 550 gold units vs 1400 gold Hex Wraiths. They fight them nearly to a draw and in my test they even won a fight when I was controlling them. Regardless of their damage type, that price gap is way too large for an imperfect counter like the dryad to win in an open field.
    This is venturing into the absurd. Clearly dryads are OP? Maybe you should just test cairn wraiths vs hexwraiths to avoid triggering the unusual balancing of ethereals in this game.

    Separately on the topic of what counters ranged, in this game clearly infantry and cavalry both can counter ranged. Heavy infantry can be a counter to non-AP ranged, chaff/wide infantry can envelop and tie up ranged or simply waste their ammo. cavalry can also help vs ranged but they can also be disadvantaged due to being large targets. I don't think it's a useful distinction at all, and on average if I were countering a ranged build I would rely primarily cheap infantry and numbers. But cavalry is always useful because a fast and disruptive element can better exploit opportunities in any battle.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 631
    edited April 27
    regarding infantry vs ranged, infantry is disfavored to a similar extent to what cavalry is vs infantry, but the conditions for reversing that is in type of infantry rather than micro. cheap, shielded, especially silver shielded infantry will beat most, even all ranged units. the balancing is analogous albeit opposite of cavalry vs infantry. even though cavalry is generally disfavored vs infantry its favored even heavily so with high tier cavalry vs lowtier infantry. Similarly even though infantry is generally disfavored vs ranged, lowtier infantry will beat most ranged units, while high tier infantry are extremely vulnerable. as long as we are talking at least 3 AP. (and conversely low tier cavalry struggle mightily vs even most basic form of infantry in most advantageous circumstances). Low tier infantry is only very slightly favored however and even a few defenders can turn the odds in ranged favor. perhaps this is less obvious to most players since they tend to play only lowtier infantry precisely to avoid the vulnerability of the unittype.

    (and yes again, this isnt the only dimension that determines outcome, shield, leadership etc also plays a role but the basic trait that applies to all these interactions is unittype)

    However, suggesting cavalry should beat mid- and high tier infantry on the charge is similar to saying infantry should have a huge buff of extra missile resistance for mid/high tier slow melee completely overturning the basic balancing between those unittypes.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,283
    eumaies said:

    Jman5 said:

    RawSugar said:

    dryads are magic damage. even with fire and magic damage that should be a really good target for them. Blood knights break them without losing a step, hexwraith should struggle against magic damage.

    Dryads are 550 gold units vs 1400 gold Hex Wraiths. They fight them nearly to a draw and in my test they even won a fight when I was controlling them. Regardless of their damage type, that price gap is way too large for an imperfect counter like the dryad to win in an open field.
    This is venturing into the absurd. Clearly dryads are OP? Maybe you should just test cairn wraiths vs hexwraiths to avoid triggering the unusual balancing of ethereals in this game.
    That is very clearly not what I said. I do not know if dryads are OP. What I do know is that there is a problem when a 550 gold unit is fighting on par with or even defeating a shock cavalry unit that valued at 1400 gold that is also supposed to be good against its target. Gold value has to have meaning. You can't just say welp, it's anti large or has magic damage so of course it beats everything that's large or vulnerable to magic. It should be a soft counter that lets the dryad punch above its weight like vs cairn wraiths for example. It should not go so far that it's beating up everything its good against. Especially not when the target in question is also good against it.

    This isn't so much about Hex wraiths or dryads. It's simply an illustration of a concept that gold value has meaning in matchups.
Sign In or Register to comment.