Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Why is infantry charge bonus worth preserving?

Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
Breaking off from the discussion of cavalry balance for a moment I must admit to being perplexed at how highly CB is valued on infantry currently, in spite of a recent change massively increasing infantry damage. For the record I'm in the camp of thinking that the bug fix is good as it increases the impact of visible stats which makes the game easier to balance and that infantry is currently overperforming pretty massively on the charge. There is no indication that buffing infantry performance was intended by CA and the shift in unit performance being so large does suggest that interunit balance runs counter to CA's previous balance goals. If you think the new paradigm is better than the old one that's a different argument and I'd prefer to just agree to disagree for the purpose of this thread.

I think the increased charge damage is occurring more broadly than simply in the infantry-cavalry match up but that's not something we can easily test and looking back on footage of older builds is not strong enough evidence to make this statement. Even in that circumstance I'm not sure the reasons for maintaining CB at the current level hold up.

One argument that was suggested was that keeping the CB high allows GW and other high charge infantry to perform effectively against spear units. If this is the goal of high CB I don't think it's succeeding. Spears have higher MD and more dispersed health both of which serve as a buffer against the additional DPS of a charge. Swordsmen, cavalry, monsters, etc. have always been more vulnerable to the damage boost from charges, while spears are and continue to be more susceptible to sustained combat where their inferior melee stats cause them to lose. In effect balancing damage dealing infantry for high CB results in the lower damage on the charge against spears when compared to every other unit class by price.

Another argument is that shock infantry are a unit class that should be preserved, but faction has a far greater impact on CB than individual unit, with the difference in CB between units within a faction being quite modest, with a few notable exceptions (forsaken, censor bearers). To be frank 4 to 6 CB isn't nothing, but when the starting number is 18 I don't think the difference is large enough to say there is a meaningful category of shock infantry (compare to cav where you'll see a difference of between 20 to 40 between shock and melee cav within a faction).

The last argument largely seems to be that the units were balanced effectively before the bug fix, but that's just an appeal to the status quo. CB was balanced around a bug so instead of trying to reintroduce some of the impact of that bug to maintain the current CB value, would it not make more sense to rebalance around performance now that the bug has been fixed?

Adjusting infantry towards more sustained combat stats by decreasing CB and raising MA, WS, and potentially MD in some cases helps sharpen the identity of all of the unit classes in the game. It allows for distinct shock infantry to exist while being distinct from the rest of the infantry, encourages healthier use of mobility by rewarding shock cav for using CB while rewarding players who force shock cav to remain in sustained combat with any infantry, and it improves the value of CDvL by making it the only way to avoid suboptimal trades when cavalry charges are occurring.

I guess I'm failing to grasp why infantry CB is given this level of importance.
«13

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,051
    CB in general rewards dynamic play tying up enemy units and then hitting them hard or to break them fast.

    CB values specifically? No particular attachment to what they need to be except infantry become more dynamic the more they rely on cb.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    @eumaies Does it? Infantry often get to charge once per engagement before either getting routed or routing the enemy. The value of flanking and rear attacks would still exist even if all infantry had a CB of 0 currently.

    The unit class is pretty limited in terms of dynamic play by nature and I don't think it's fair to say CB has any noticeable impact on that.

    At best this makes players less concerned about counter charging but that's pretty minimal and often neglected in favor of microing more high value units anyway.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 650
    eumaies said:

    CB in general rewards dynamic play tying up enemy units and then hitting them hard or to break them fast.

    CB values specifically? No particular attachment to what they need to be except infantry become more dynamic the more they rely on cb.

    What does dynamic even mean in this context??
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,051

    @eumaies Does it? Infantry often get to charge once per engagement before either getting routed or routing the enemy. The value of flanking and rear attacks would still exist even if all infantry had a CB of 0 currently.

    The unit class is pretty limited in terms of dynamic play by nature and I don't think it's fair to say CB has any noticeable impact on that.

    At best this makes players less concerned about counter charging but that's pretty minimal and often neglected in favor of microing more high value units anyway.

    Wow that’s quite a statement it’s like people don’t play infantry factions much.

    Blocking and charging and reengaging (when part of tag teams) to refresh charge against new enemies is for sure an important tactic with infantry.

    Most people are just so focused on their sem and cav micro they think it’s not worth the bother to micro their infantry.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,051
    For example you think dwarf warriors gw have no purpose but they are hugely dependent on their charge bonus. Set them up to use it, ideally more than once, and the difference in performance is substantial.

    Cb also encourages spaghetti formation rather than blocks. There is a tradeoff in killing power Vs survivability and resilience Vs single entities and moreso due to cb.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    @eumaies

    So if we're talking multiplayer yeah I don't generally see people spending that much time microing infantry. I don't think that's a surprising statement.

    If you wanted to get optimal performance and had the ability to do so sure that's a reasonable idea. The fact that you need two infantry units to be able to cycle charge consistently does beg the question of why you wouldn't just hit the flank or the rear which is both simpler and probably more efficient from a value perspective even without the microtax. The lost attacks from repositioning and pulling out might actually cost you damage in the long run if you already had a full surround. If you're arguing that you're using these tactics against another human player with equal infantry units I'd suggest they are just playing poorly. Any instance of disengaging a unit in that context should allow your opponent to do the same if they found it advantageous. Which again they might not depending on the leadership situation. You'd just be trading charges which shouldn't change the outcome in most unit matchups with the current way units are balanced.

    The fact that most infantry are (or wear pre patch) slower to deal damage and less expensive means microing them is less important. Just getting a single good charge off and providing them with a bit of support is often sufficient to get a solid return on your investment. Additionally the impact to the balance of power from cheap infantry is small so trying to maximize value gain on them is something that only matters in close games. Focusing lords, heroes, SEM, cav, and monstrous units is just a better use of your limited micro. People micro non-infantry units with greater intensity because that's supposed to be the optimal use of your micro.

    DWGW are kind of a rough unit. I find it hard to argue that I should pay more for what will usually be almost no damage difference because if I spend a lot of time microing them I could bump their performance more than I could just just charging with normal DWs, who also gain pretty substantially from charging enemies. DWGW have a clear purpose they're just bad at their job, current balance situation not withstanding as now you should definitely consider them because counter charging a unit with CDvL results in better value trade into large units than bracing.

    The spaghetti formation vs blocks point isn't inherently linked to CB. Wider more broken up lines have more models attacking and if you buff damage stats to increase sustained damage you'd still see the same impact from the formations.

    Mind you this is still all predicated on the fact that this gameplay makes infantry inherently more rewarding to use, something I'd question.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,051
    Your question basically boils down to "can we make infantry any more boring and less interactive". it's a strange goal. Just because a unit's impact on the balance of power is less doesn't mean you want playing that unit to not be at all dynamic or interesting. I find the focus on SEMS to be incredibly boring and less strategic than deploying an army of smaller value units that have to be used in a coordinated fashion to achieve victory. No one unit or click will define who wins; but how you use them all together and over the course of the game will.

    Partly i think you've misunderstood what I'm saying and partly I think you're just incorrect about the importance of CB on high CB infantry units.

    Cavalry rely on chaff units to bog enemies up and then flank. Higher CB infantry are no different. They are often more fragile and don't want to take charges if they can help it; they are also very weak if they don't get their charge bonus at all, which people often find ways to interrupt. They also have ideal targets and bad targets for their CB attack, which the enemy will try to influence what you get to fight. In short, they promote dynamic play.

    Yes you generally want two units to allow you to painlessly pull out with one, but that's true of cav as well and while it all happens on a slower timeframe the benefits of switching targets and engaging elsewhere periodically remain very high for a high CB infantry unit. People should do it more than they do.

    Yes, if you make infantry slower to deal damage and remove rewards to micro them then you will have even less incentive to micro infantry or to use them to deal damage quickly. But high CB infantry can and do deal damage quickly which is part of their value proposition.

    And charging is an inherently dynamic process for all units. Rather than remaining in a fixed formation or box it speeds up your units and commits them to advancing, which in turn opens up options for the opponent (to kite and pull you out or to engage).

    Minor points:

    Dwarf GW don't perform remotely like dwarf warriors basic, both due to their other stats and their CB. While in rare cases you might get to counter charge cavalry they are and were useful for a long time since their CB got buffed.

    Spaghetti formations aren't solely useful due to CB but the advantage is more significant for higher CB units.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    @eumaies

    If I'm misrepresenting what you're saying I'd like to apologize. Not my intention and I appreciate you taking the time to reply and clarify.

    Your question basically boils down to "can we make infantry any more boring and less interactive". it's a strange goal. Just because a unit's impact on the balance of power is less doesn't mean you want playing that unit to not be at all dynamic or interesting. I find the focus on SEMS to be incredibly boring and less strategic than deploying an army of smaller value units that have to be used in a coordinated fashion to achieve victory. No one unit or click will define who wins; but how you use them all together and over the course of the game will.


    I really think you are overestimating the value of CB in making infantry micro enjoyable. Flanking, positioning before the fight, creating holes to push infantry through to the back line, reforming lines after a wing collapses, these are all engaging and exist regardless of CB. I don't think shifting infantry to a more sustained model of damage (or more accurately smoothing their damage curve) is "making infantry more boring and less interactive". Frankly lowering the CB of a lot of the generic units would allow potential shock infantry to actually be more distinctly focused on the charge. If every unit does about 3x as much damage on the charge it doesn't do much for pushing unit distinction. Granted I'm wondering if this has more to do with infantry fights lasting so long that burning out after a charge would be completely untenable for an infantry unit.

    As to the point about balance of power, that's not to imply I like it just that currently microing infantry is generally detrimental since relative value triggers army losses. Getting 3x value on a cheap infantry doesn't matter if you lose units worth substantially more. As long as army losses works the way it does spending too much time microing cheap units is a luxury. Frankly I'd like if health was weighted in some way so getting 2/3rds of the entities in your army bulldozed would matter for some factions.

    Cavalry rely on chaff units to bog enemies up and then flank. Higher CB infantry are no different. They are often more fragile and don't want to take charges if they can help it; they are also very weak if they don't get their charge bonus at all, which people often find ways to interrupt. They also have ideal targets and bad targets for their CB attack, which the enemy will try to influence what you get to fight. In short, they promote dynamic play.


    High CB infantry tend to have perfectly serviceable sustained combat stats in addition to high CB and are often pretty tanky. Quite often they just get more health or better defensive stats like physical resist or armor. Gors, Berserkers, Wardancers, Forsaken, Black Arc Corsairs etc. The idea of the fragile shock infantry just doesn't seem to bear out when looking at the units in game. I still stand by the idea that currently there isn't enough distinction within infantry to argue for a meaningful distinction between a damage dealing infantry and a shock infantry. As for the idea of bad targets to charge, that's not different than having a bad match up, something that would exist with the same level of dynamism even if CB was set to 0 for all units.

    Shock cav on the other hand is much squishier in sustained combat when compared to melee cav.

    Yes you generally want two units to allow you to painlessly pull out with one, but that's true of cav as well and while it all happens on a slower timeframe the benefits of switching targets and engaging elsewhere periodically remain very high for a high CB infantry unit. People should do it more than they do.


    Cavalry is far more flexible in which units it can work with, far more effective at extricating themselves from an engagement, and loses far less damage for doing so. Not to mention cavalry can actually outrun infantry which isn't a guarantee for an infantry unit. I don't feel the comparison between the two is fair and I certainly don't think switching infantry targets without having won an engagement is as simple or as effective as you are suggesting here.

    And charging is an inherently dynamic process for all units. Rather than remaining in a fixed formation or box it speeds up your units and commits them to advancing, which in turn opens up options for the opponent (to kite and pull you out or to engage).


    I guess I don't see this. Charging is a movement order attached to an attack order. I do not think charge is inherently more dynamic than jockeying for position, which also provide an opponent with the same options of engaging or pulling back. If by dynamic play you mean opening up decisions charging arguable decreases that as 9 times out of 10 the best answer to just charge whatever unit you can get in range of for infantry since they ignore most charge defense and are too slow to get away with any particularly fancy repositioning once combat is entered.

    Hearing your argument against overly focusing on high value units it seems like making individual infantry less micro intensive would be good as it lets you focus on coordinating multiple cheaper units more effectively allowing for a greater array of combined armies tactics. If you don't like the focus on singular units then lowering the microtax on wider armies would at least to my mind improve overall gameplay.

    I don't think microing infantry is particularly engaging. It's finicky and it intensifies the worst parts of microing cav since you have more entities that can get stuck and they move around the map more slowly. Cav at least is fast enough to pull away from infantry and reposition on the fly, even to the point of being able to feint and escape from most infantry. Infantry often just get stabbed in the back if they try anything particularly fancy and once again if you have the ability to cycle charge infantry you could just flank or rear attack which gives a higher increase in accuracy resulting in higher damage with less work, even before we talk about leadership.

    Dwarf GW don't perform remotely like dwarf warriors basic, both due to their other stats and their CB. While in rare cases you might get to counter charge cavalry they are and were useful for a long time since their CB got buffed.


    The difference in accuracy on a charge between the two units is 8% and without the charge it is 2%. The damage difference they deal before armor reduction ranges from 8 to 2 damage per attack. They are the same on all non-melee stats with the exception of the missile block and the charge defense. Against targets without 90 armor or more the damage gain versus damage taken between the two is minimal. They perform very similarly because they are very similar units.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,069
    edited May 4

    The difference in accuracy on a charge between the two units is 26% and without the charge it is 6%. The damage difference they deal before armor reduction ranges from 33% to 10% damage per attack. They are the same on all non-melee stats with the exception of the missile block and the charge defense. Against targets without 90 armor or more the damage gain versus damage taken between the two is less note worthy. They perform very similarly because they are very similar units.

    Corrected your math. These percentages only increase vs. higher MD opponents like swordsmen or spearmen.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,051
    No offense taken at all and I hope I'm not coming across too sharply. Just a spirited disagreement, but good to discuss.

    I think I see your emerging argument that it might be better to have some infantry truly dedicated to being "shock" while others don't have much CB at all, whereas right now infantry CB exist on more of a continuum. That said, infantry speed and other stats are also generally on a more marginal continuum than cav. Still really valuable distinctions, but infantry by their nature are a unit that has less solo control over what it engages with or does. A little speed helps... a little. So all infantry to some degree are paying for numbers and durability (relative to cav) but within that broad category there's still quite a distinction between more glass cannon, more offensive, and more defensive infantry; slower and faster infantry that can pick their engagements vs each other (or ranged units).

    And while more defensive infantry are quite potent (a unit of ironbreakers or shielded chosen can grind through tons of chaff in a late game), more offensive infantry are also quite valuable, because quickly breaking an enemy line opens up their back line and flanks. Swapping CB for base MA and WS stats (in a cost equivalent trade) would on average make those offensive infantry slower to do their job and thus less valuable. Because offensive infantry can be wounded by more opponents the longer the game goes and need to make a difference faster while defensive high MD/armour infantry are meant to outlast opponents but not to quickly penetrate lines. You may think offensive infantry are "slow" to rout other infantry, but it's all relative to what the opponent was hoping to accomplish. A black orc with the waagh and a charge will crump through a front line way faster than your opponent wants you to and every second counts if you're getting shot along the way.

    On the micro front, I can choose to spend 10 second micro-ing a high value fast unit to get the perfect facing in a duel or to continually dodge cannon and arrow shots, or i can spend 2 seconds each on 5 (or 4 seconds on some and 0 seconds on others) cheaper units in my army where the stakes are individually lower and the micro is less gamey. Or, if your point is simply that its' better to prioritize higher cost units, well not all infantry are cheap. How a unit of bestigors performs is almost completely a function of whether you pay attention to them. They are fast, can charge and switch opponents dynamically, but are terrible if stuck in sustained disadvantageous combats. Yes they move slower and need support but they are still an expensive important unit and how you play them matters alot, including their high CB and ensuring they get the jump on enemies..

    Now where i can kind of agree with you is the basic dynamic of "always get your charge bonus click off" is a little silly, and if they made it so walking into an enemy automatically triggered a charge animation (for all units) that would not bother me too much. But that automatic behavior aside, flanking and surrounding are just as important for infantry as for cav. It's harder to micro infantry (because you have to plan more in advance since they're slower) but also less high stakes since they are more durable if things don't go perfectly. Flanking and surrounding I agree aren't entirely linked to CB, but again given the way morale works if you traded CB for equivalent value MA and WS stats you would be reducing the speed that offensive infantry rout their targets and thus reducing the value of accomplishing flanks and surrounds with infantry. Timing is important for all units in this game.

    re: charge bonuses opening up openings for your opponent, i'll admit it's on a micro scale, but if you are in a defensive infantry formation and you charge the enemy will often pull you out and try to bait you, versus a spear unit that would be just as happy to sit and wait to get charged much of the time. it's cat and mouse but even at the most simple level of a 4-unit box, a dedicated box generally surrenders its charge bonus if you want to play it really tight. There are plenty of infantry with low CB that lend themselves to immobile gameplay, but that isn't always what I'm hoping to get out of infantry -- usually there's something slower than you on the battlefield and you make a bee-line for it.

    I'm having a little trouble following this detail about the dwarf warriors. granted their CB is not worlds apart (+6). I'm not sure what being "the same on all non-melee stats" really implies since obviously their very different melee stats are part of what makes them behave very differently vs various units. But a +6 CB combined with +2WS and a ton more AP makes for a very different value proposition vs key opponents on the charge. Charge dwarf warriors into black orcs vs charge dwarf warriors GW into black orcs and it's worlds apart. Yes the CB synergizes with the AP and WS and MA... and it means if you bog dwarf warriors GW down with an unarmoured cheap unit you've really dented their ability to payoff. So how you use them is important, and a good part of that is that CB component of what they're good at.

    but the final point I'll make relates to both dwarf warriors and infantry CB in general. You're right infantry don't just get to run off and make a clever or surprising move all by themselves. But infantry are used in tandem with each other and in the interaction with ranged units in the back line. They can countercharge enemies who are trying to bypass them to hit other units or in response to their nearby friends getting charged. They can block and tackle for each other (when you have one weak unit to take a hit and one strong CB inf to follow up) and they can tag team (when you take multiple cheap units some of which, like dwarf warriors GW, are charging oriented) to outnumber and flank enemies.

    Anyhoo, certainly everything with infantry stats is incremental/marginal differences rather than completely different unit classes like you have for cav and other fast unit types. But unless you want every infantry unit to be 32 speed, 0 CB, and just offensive stat vs defensive stat paradigm differences, I don't see the harm in the meaningful degree of variety across infantry types. Some are meant to be better at flanking, some are meant to do damage faster, some are meant to tank damage, some are meant to get in the way and bog the enemy up. Infantry-speed units can't afford to be too glass cannon or lopsided in their stats (see giant slayers for an infantry unit that sucks balls due to extreme lopsided stats), but within their range there's still a lot of variety.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 6,357
    eumaies said:

    ...more offensive infantry are also quite valuable, because quickly breaking an enemy line opens up their back line and flanks.

    Just watch Bestigor on the charge... they do a good deal of shock and with the right tactics turn Hammer and Anvil into Hammer and Hammer...
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,458
    @Spellbound55 the cb is fine, and infantry are more interesting and diverse with it. With regards to charging spears, the key there is that shock infantry kill them faster on the charge, especially vs HE where its extra beneficial to quickly remove MP and reduce their md by 12. Shock infantry is very strong vs he and that's cool.

    The only thing that is not working at the moment is the fact that they deal as much damage to cav that walks into them without charging as they do when they take an erect charge to the face from lances before they get into axe range. I don't know if its entirely figured out yet if that is explicitly to charge damage not registrering before for an unknown reason or if its (also?) related to lack of knockdowns leading to very tightly packed standing infantry models in melee range. Either way, in other scenarios like infantry vs infantry or cav vs cav charges seemingly doesn't cause any problems so I think the fix should not need to nerf infantry cb. I think they need to use other mechanics and there are a few options. Splash power multiplier could be used to increase the impact of individual cav units that need more impulse to their charge, or splash attacks cos be used to boost effective damage output through less overkill, or even some kind of charge defense vs small could be used while in the charge to mimic the impact effect of lancing down handweapon.

    There are things you can do that doesn't involve nerfing infantry cb, that also makes the b distinction between a successful cav charge and being charged freely while tied up or mismicroing. No reason why infantry getting a free charge shouldn't get the full reward, the only thing is that a charge from shock lances should to some extent override the mutual charge from axes.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,288
    edited May 4
    er what in the world

    U charge, u do dmg.

    Do we even need to waste time explaining that. Its extremely clear which inf r "shock" inf and which one isnt. The entire beastman roster r charge balanced. Frikking racial r even devoted to charge bonus and speed.

    Spears and swords r clearly defined, one with 4 the other with 14.

    In every single tabletop and totalwar, inf has always been able to kill cav in a full duration fight, that is by design and is a core mechanic. It would be extremely stupid for any inf to lose to cav when they do not have the control and speed.
    Post edited by yst on
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    @eumaies I appreciate your conversation as well. I've been turning this over in my mind for a bit and I think I've pulled the wind out of my sails. Considering how to balance offensive infantry while increasing sustained damage for chaff is a bit of a nightmare. Regardless of CBs impact on micro the fundamental assumptions of the game aren't really alterable without essentially a redesign from the ground up. I don't envy the people at CA who do this for a living.

    The idea of developing effective shock infantry that are notably distinct is pretty difficult given how much sustained damage is needed to push through an infantry unit. You kind of just have to keep increasing stats linearly and without a substantial reworking on how infantry are balanced that's kind of stuck. Most elite infantry are kind of at the ceiling for reasonable damage output without killing entities in 1 to 2 hits regardless of cost. CB bypassing this limit hits a diminishing return for a lot of units but that's fine because when combat stats return to normal it slows the pace of melee combat substantially which is necessary to allow for players to interact with the game. Fundamentally shifting the overall flow of combat is problematic to balance in general.

    I'm still skeptical of the current charge damage output (it might just be me but I feel as though infantry fights have sped up. Might just be the increased amount of infantry) but adjusting the underlying damage and health numbers by any particularly large margins would be fundamentally unhelpful. Really at this point it's just a matter of waiting for the next balance patch as trying to compare infantry performance across patches is not feasible. If the bug improved charge performance in general than either some backend changes need to occur or CB would need to be adjusted to hit whatever CA's target numbers are. Lowering CB slightly and compensating with defensive stats isn't entirely out of the question but the burst damage on charge paradigm is still going to be comparable to the present if the game is going to function properly.

    You have the right of on most points. I'm not sure for elite GW infantry (who are often damage dealers) if the current charge focus is actually all that beneficial for them. They still seem to pay out the nose for just the ap ratio but I've beaten that dead horse plenty. Armor not guaranteed, trade bad without high armor, why do they lose MD, yada yada.

    @Bastilean Fair enough my comparison of just a one to one attacks does fail to properly value the repetitive gain of multiple attacks at a higher hit chance. I'm curious what your conditions were for getting the results you came to though. It might just be because I should be sleeping but I am just not getting the same outcome with my math. I'm wondering how many attacks you're assuming with CB and how many without, assuming I'm thinking along some of the same lines you are.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394

    @Spellbound55 the cb is fine, and infantry are more interesting and diverse with it. With regards to charging spears, the key there is that shock infantry kill them faster on the charge, especially vs HE where its extra beneficial to quickly remove MP and reduce their md by 12. Shock infantry is very strong vs he and that's cool.

    The only thing that is not working at the moment is the fact that they deal as much damage to cav that walks into them without charging as they do when they take an erect charge to the face from lances before they get into axe range. I don't know if its entirely figured out yet if that is explicitly to charge damage not registrering before for an unknown reason or if its (also?) related to lack of knockdowns leading to very tightly packed standing infantry models in melee range. Either way, in other scenarios like infantry vs infantry or cav vs cav charges seemingly doesn't cause any problems so I think the fix should not need to nerf infantry cb. I think they need to use other mechanics and there are a few options. Splash power multiplier could be used to increase the impact of individual cav units that need more impulse to their charge, or splash attacks cos be used to boost effective damage output through less overkill, or even some kind of charge defense vs small could be used while in the charge to mimic the impact effect of lancing down handweapon.

    There are things you can do that doesn't involve nerfing infantry cb, that also makes the b distinction between a successful cav charge and being charged freely while tied up or mismicroing. No reason why infantry getting a free charge shouldn't get the full reward, the only thing is that a charge from shock lances should to some extent override the mutual charge from axes.

    I might be entirely off on this but I'm not sure the bug is as limited as you are suggesting it is. If the bug was previously working in a similar way to the GSK's I wouldn't be surprised in infantry were dealing substantially less than they are now at the moment of charge on all units but were better able to catch up after getting stuck into melee combat properly (as GSK's would against infantry). I've felt like infantry fights, particularly with high CB infantry are going faster than they were prior to the patch but that's my impression. I recall reading some posters report about seeing similar damage boosts against monstrous infantry, but it's not clearly testable and going back and trying to compare footage would be unlikely to provide meaningfully useful data. It's really just a matter of waiting for whatever CA does about it.

    We've talked over some of these potential change options previously and I'm pretty skeptical of any of them that aren't simply reducing infantry's damage on the charge which is way too much currently. I still am not a fan of artificially trying to code in an accuracy based solution rather than just using the visible stats and I certainly reject the idea that the bug fix must have been lazy or done improperly since it had an unintended consequence. Duck described it as attacks that rolled a success were not connecting and if the game is rolling for successful attacks they should hit. Ideally the bug will be consistently active across unit types allowing for an one size fits all solution but we'll see.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,458

    @Spellbound55 the cb is fine, and infantry are more interesting and diverse with it. With regards to charging spears, the key there is that shock infantry kill them faster on the charge, especially vs HE where its extra beneficial to quickly remove MP and reduce their md by 12. Shock infantry is very strong vs he and that's cool.

    The only thing that is not working at the moment is the fact that they deal as much damage to cav that walks into them without charging as they do when they take an erect charge to the face from lances before they get into axe range. I don't know if its entirely figured out yet if that is explicitly to charge damage not registrering before for an unknown reason or if its (also?) related to lack of knockdowns leading to very tightly packed standing infantry models in melee range. Either way, in other scenarios like infantry vs infantry or cav vs cav charges seemingly doesn't cause any problems so I think the fix should not need to nerf infantry cb. I think they need to use other mechanics and there are a few options. Splash power multiplier could be used to increase the impact of individual cav units that need more impulse to their charge, or splash attacks cos be used to boost effective damage output through less overkill, or even some kind of charge defense vs small could be used while in the charge to mimic the impact effect of lancing down handweapon.

    There are things you can do that doesn't involve nerfing infantry cb, that also makes the b distinction between a successful cav charge and being charged freely while tied up or mismicroing. No reason why infantry getting a free charge shouldn't get the full reward, the only thing is that a charge from shock lances should to some extent override the mutual charge from axes.

    I might be entirely off on this but I'm not sure the bug is as limited as you are suggesting it is. If the bug was previously working in a similar way to the GSK's I wouldn't be surprised in infantry were dealing substantially less than they are now at the moment of charge on all units but were better able to catch up after getting stuck into melee combat properly (as GSK's would against infantry). I've felt like infantry fights, particularly with high CB infantry are going faster than they were prior to the patch but that's my impression. I recall reading some posters report about seeing similar damage boosts against monstrous infantry, but it's not clearly testable and going back and trying to compare footage would be unlikely to provide meaningfully useful data. It's really just a matter of waiting for whatever CA does about it.

    We've talked over some of these potential change options previously and I'm pretty skeptical of any of them that aren't simply reducing infantry's damage on the charge which is way too much currently. I still am not a fan of artificially trying to code in an accuracy based solution rather than just using the visible stats and I certainly reject the idea that the bug fix must have been lazy or done improperly since it had an unintended consequence. Duck described it as attacks that rolled a success were not connecting and if the game is rolling for successful attacks they should hit. Ideally the bug will be consistently active across unit types allowing for an one size fits all solution but we'll see.
    We don't know the details so not really any point speculating more. It all depends on exactly why damage "went missing". If it's an effect of stagger/interrupts, or movement sending models out of hit template range, or a pure coding mistake making part of the damage forgotten to be added. I believe it's more likely one of the first two, but we can only guess.

    If all charges deal more damage in inf vs inf as well as cav vs cav then it causes less imbalance at least as it would mostly affect the pace of engagements. Not sure if this is the case, it would imply that damage was transferred poorly to begin with and it was never really reported as a problem before the stags seemed to have very limp charges compared to other shock units already in the game. I would be surprised it it would apply equally across all unit interactions....
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,014
    a few things:
    looking at the chaos roster the numbers are somehting like
    shield infantry : CB is ca 50% of MA
    GW infantry : CB is ca 67% of MA
    cavalry : CB is ca 100% of 'MA
    shock cavalry : CB is ca 200% of MA

    this seems like a nice progression.

    I'd also point out that reducing CB and increasing MA by halfthat amount would alleviate the countercharge matchup but not actually make it favorable for cavalry. the result is something like -20% charge damage and +20% sustained damage. I wouldnt have strong feelings either way, but for gameplay and aesthetics i agree w others that charges should be impactful also for infantry, if not as big damagemultipliers as they are for cavalry
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    yst said:

    er what in the world

    U charge, u do dmg.

    Do we even need to waste time explaining that. Its extremely clear which inf r "shock" inf and which one isnt. The entire beastman roster r charge balanced. Frikking racial r even devoted to charge bonus and speed.

    Spears and swords r clearly defined, one with 4 the other with 14.

    In every single tabletop and totalwar, inf has always been able to kill cav in a full duration fight, that is by design and is a core mechanic. It would be extremely stupid for any inf to lose to cav when they do not have the control and speed.

    I'm kind of impressed that you read my initial post wondering why people on both sides of the "infantry v cavalry" debate were viewing infantry CB as a sacred cow. I at no points suggested in the initial post that CB should go away, just questioned why adjusting it is viewed as untenable. I still think the bug fix just revealed that a lot of infantry probably have overturned CBs because a bug was causing a bunch of their attacks to just not count. It's entirely possible the only necessary change is to account for that increase in accuracy, which is still potentially best done through CB adjustment.

    Also BM CB is pretty overrated on a lot of their units. It's slightly above average for cost but easily below units that could be classified as dedicated shock units. It's all about that speed boost! However it is very much possible to rebalance them. Gor herd for instance should probably be anti-infantry just to match up with the dual weapons = anti-infantry thing CA settled on shortly afterwards. Point being the fact that a change would affect units is not in and of itself a reason to not adjust things.

    The spear and sword thing doesn't actually hold up all that well. The tomb kings have sword units with CBs of 8. As I've mentioned a few times faction has more of a say on unit CB than weapon type, though dedicated anti-large units do tend to have substantially lower CB when compared by faction.

    Finally no one is suggesting infantry should lose in sustained combat short of giant cost differences (skavenslaves, peasants, and zombies should all definitely lose to heavy shock cav even in sustained you?). We're pointing out that currently infantry are able to pay for themselves off of a single charge into shock cav which means they're doing between a third and a half of the cavalry units total health within the first 15 seconds of combat. I don't think that meets the standard of "full duration."
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    edited May 4

    @Spellbound55 the cb is fine, and infantry are more interesting and diverse with it. With regards to charging spears, the key there is that shock infantry kill them faster on the charge, especially vs HE where its extra beneficial to quickly remove MP and reduce their md by 12. Shock infantry is very strong vs he and that's cool.

    The only thing that is not working at the moment is the fact that they deal as much damage to cav that walks into them without charging as they do when they take an erect charge to the face from lances before they get into axe range. I don't know if its entirely figured out yet if that is explicitly to charge damage not registrering before for an unknown reason or if its (also?) related to lack of knockdowns leading to very tightly packed standing infantry models in melee range. Either way, in other scenarios like infantry vs infantry or cav vs cav charges seemingly doesn't cause any problems so I think the fix should not need to nerf infantry cb. I think they need to use other mechanics and there are a few options. Splash power multiplier could be used to increase the impact of individual cav units that need more impulse to their charge, or splash attacks cos be used to boost effective damage output through less overkill, or even some kind of charge defense vs small could be used while in the charge to mimic the impact effect of lancing down handweapon.

    There are things you can do that doesn't involve nerfing infantry cb, that also makes the b distinction between a successful cav charge and being charged freely while tied up or mismicroing. No reason why infantry getting a free charge shouldn't get the full reward, the only thing is that a charge from shock lances should to some extent override the mutual charge from axes.

    I might be entirely off on this but I'm not sure the bug is as limited as you are suggesting it is. If the bug was previously working in a similar way to the GSK's I wouldn't be surprised in infantry were dealing substantially less than they are now at the moment of charge on all units but were better able to catch up after getting stuck into melee combat properly (as GSK's would against infantry). I've felt like infantry fights, particularly with high CB infantry are going faster than they were prior to the patch but that's my impression. I recall reading some posters report about seeing similar damage boosts against monstrous infantry, but it's not clearly testable and going back and trying to compare footage would be unlikely to provide meaningfully useful data. It's really just a matter of waiting for whatever CA does about it.

    We've talked over some of these potential change options previously and I'm pretty skeptical of any of them that aren't simply reducing infantry's damage on the charge which is way too much currently. I still am not a fan of artificially trying to code in an accuracy based solution rather than just using the visible stats and I certainly reject the idea that the bug fix must have been lazy or done improperly since it had an unintended consequence. Duck described it as attacks that rolled a success were not connecting and if the game is rolling for successful attacks they should hit. Ideally the bug will be consistently active across unit types allowing for an one size fits all solution but we'll see.
    We don't know the details so not really any point speculating more. It all depends on exactly why damage "went missing". If it's an effect of stagger/interrupts, or movement sending models out of hit template range, or a pure coding mistake making part of the damage forgotten to be added. I believe it's more likely one of the first two, but we can only guess.

    If all charges deal more damage in inf vs inf as well as cav vs cav then it causes less imbalance at least as it would mostly affect the pace of engagements. Not sure if this is the case, it would imply that damage was transferred poorly to begin with and it was never really reported as a problem before the stags seemed to have very limp charges compared to other shock units already in the game. I would be surprised it it would apply equally across all unit interactions....
    GSK bug was applying across all unit types, at least as far as I could tell and I spent a silly amount of time trying to determine what the extent of the issue was. Bugs are weird and odd interactions can make little sense, but if the change made was systemic I'd be surprised if it wasn't showing up elsewhere. Beyond pace of engagement since the damage range between cheap and expensive units is relatively small and gated by accuracy on top of battle pace you'd expect to see cheap infantry trading up far more effectively than they should, though they'd still end up dying in droves. Recently just seen marauder GWs doing unexpectedly well in some replays but some of that is anti-cav where we know there is an issue so it's hard to say with certainty.

    You are correct though without more information this is just speculation. Useful? Not really. Kind of fun? If your a weird neurotic like me I guess. This last line is tongue in cheek for the record. Sarcasm bad on the internet and what not.
  • AudacimousAudacimous Registered Users Posts: 174
    CB in most cases isn't nearly as important for determining who wins in a pure infantry on infantry engagements as other factors like MA, MD, HP, LD, WS, armor, or attack interval since the effect diminishes quickly over 10s period and cycle charging to refresh CB is untenable, but it is important in the aftermath of the engagement in terms of chasing routing units off (assuming they have the speed to do so). Fast shock troops like Forsaken excel in running down fleeing survivors similar to shock cav.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 4,711
    edited May 4


    The difference in accuracy on a charge between the two units is 8% and without the charge it is 2%. The damage difference they deal before armor reduction ranges from 8 to 2 damage per attack. They are the same on all non-melee stats with the exception of the missile block and the charge defense. Against targets without 90 armor or more the damage gain versus damage taken between the two is minimal. They perform very similarly because they are very similar units.

    I have much more to say about this topic, but this is false.The difference in accuracy between the two units without charging is about 6%, and on the charge is almost 20%.

    Extra 20% per cent accuracy, plus another 20% extra more damage (first hit on the charge) gives you an extra 40% effectiveness during the charge. And that is before taking AP into account, which is easily another 20% damage even against unarmored troops.

  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,069
    edited May 4


    @Bastilean Fair enough my comparison of just a one to one attacks does fail to properly value the repetitive gain of multiple attacks at a higher hit chance. I'm curious what your conditions were for getting the results you came to though. It might just be because I should be sleeping but I am just not getting the same outcome with my math. I'm wondering how many attacks you're assuming with CB and how many without, assuming I'm thinking along some of the same lines you are.

    Yeah, I was just pointing out that +6% to hit over 35% to hit is +18% approximately. Assume equal MD. I didn't count in the first 12 CB though (lazyme). Point is: Dwarfs generally have poor MA so CB can be extra beneficial for them.

    Personally, I don't have any problem with the premise of this thread either. I just wanted to point out that CB is meaningful and that's why we are having this conversation to begin with. Reducing Marauder CB by 20% could help and increase MA/MD by 10% in exchange. May not be the whole picture, but White Lions or Dwarf Warriors charging cavalry aren't a problem I don't think (because they have moderate CBs), so there is a case for managing the heavy CBs on cheaper infantry which are very rare to begin with.

    There might also be another need to address the value of the charge in general which has a lot less to do with the infantry stats and more to do with the cav/infantry interaction based on different cav speeds etc. Impact damage, unit coherency for both units and percentage of units knocked over effect this interplay more than anything. Cavalry tends to benefit from bouncing rather than penetrating and intermingling for easier cycling charging. On the other hand, battles should be messy and cavalry should be encouraged to plow into the enemy. Lance formation should be beneficial. Etc.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,458
    edited May 4
    The problem with just adjusting stats, either nerfing infantry or buffing cav, is that you still end up doing the same damage if you charge infantry into idle cavalry as you do to cav that are charging you in the face with lances. An axe charge should be effective vs idle/preoccupied cav but should not trade well head on into charging shock lances. It's not a problem that axes can damage cav, or that cav has too little MD or HP. What we need is to distinguish between the two scenarios above because idle/preoccupied cav should get punished if charged, while at the same time charging head on into charging shock cav with axes should still be a very bad idea with poor outcome for the axes.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 13,840
    edited May 4
    .
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 13,840

    The problem with just adjusting stats, either nerfing infantry or buffing cav, is that you still end up doing the same damage if you charge infantry into idle cavalry as you do to cav that are charging you in the face with lances. An axe charge should be effective vs idle/preoccupied cav but should not trade well head on into charging shock lances. It's not a problem that axes can damage cav, or that cav has too little MD or HP. What we need is to distinguish between the two scenarios above because idle/preoccupied cav should get punished if charged, while at the same time charging head on into charging shock cav with axes should still be a very bad idea with poor outcome for the axes.

    than the obvious solution according what your saying is increase HP of higher tier cav
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,558
    saweendra said:

    The problem with just adjusting stats, either nerfing infantry or buffing cav, is that you still end up doing the same damage if you charge infantry into idle cavalry as you do to cav that are charging you in the face with lances. An axe charge should be effective vs idle/preoccupied cav but should not trade well head on into charging shock lances. It's not a problem that axes can damage cav, or that cav has too little MD or HP. What we need is to distinguish between the two scenarios above because idle/preoccupied cav should get punished if charged, while at the same time charging head on into charging shock cav with axes should still be a very bad idea with poor outcome for the axes.

    than the obvious solution according what your saying is increase HP of higher tier cav
    That is not at all what he is saying. If you do that, you are just making cav better, but still axes charging at charging cav do too much damage.

    Perhaps some rule that gives charging cav some "charge defense" % against countercharging units that are not large? This would solve the problem though I am not sure if the engine would allow this.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,014
    edited May 4
    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 13,840

    saweendra said:

    The problem with just adjusting stats, either nerfing infantry or buffing cav, is that you still end up doing the same damage if you charge infantry into idle cavalry as you do to cav that are charging you in the face with lances. An axe charge should be effective vs idle/preoccupied cav but should not trade well head on into charging shock lances. It's not a problem that axes can damage cav, or that cav has too little MD or HP. What we need is to distinguish between the two scenarios above because idle/preoccupied cav should get punished if charged, while at the same time charging head on into charging shock cav with axes should still be a very bad idea with poor outcome for the axes.

    than the obvious solution according what your saying is increase HP of higher tier cav
    That is not at all what he is saying. If you do that, you are just making cav better, but still axes charging at charging cav do too much damage.

    Perhaps some rule that gives charging cav some "charge defense" % against countercharging units that are not large? This would solve the problem though I am not sure if the engine would allow this.

    see this interaction honestly is fine because pulling off this in actual MU is not easy and when you do it should be rewarded .

    But if we are going to attempt to fix than impact damage for Elite cavalry depending on their mount , armour speed need to be adjusted
    At the first 3s of a charge Elite cav should get splash damage VS infantry ideally two splash targets

    knockdown grace period need to adjusted depending on infantry class and armour and weight

    they need bring back the get up animation times based on weight of armour.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,458
    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 13,840

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    yes if they were fighting one vs one but each model is getting most likely two vs one right so in 2 v 1 fight the reach advantage will not that be great
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
Sign In or Register to comment.