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?

13»

Comments

  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,829
    eumaies said:

    Hound sized units for a long time but maybe moreso now(?) are especially good at dealing damage on the charge. I wonder if instead of a bug the basic interface they are looking for is some kind of max number of attacks a unit can make on the charge in a given amount of space.

    yeah hounds are scary good at dealing damage fo some reason, it could be because they are very small and bunch up together to make lots of attacks
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 497
    Hounds have smaller models have faster attack speed than cavalry at least from animations it seems that way and typically will end up surrounding a charged unit so get in way more damage.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    edited May 7

    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?

    As usual we're short on data but going by this vid

    first that came up searching for wwc finals
    the numbers were:

    1st x vs x
    2nd x vs 1K GW&2Kcav
    3rd 5K cav vs 4K cav
    4th 3,5K cav vz x
    5th x vs 2K cav
    6th 6K cav vs 4K cav
    7th 3k cav vs 7k cav
    8th 2K cav vs 1KGW 2K cav
    9th 2K cav vs 2K cav

    sp 45K cav 2K GW (average ca 2,5K pr army cav and 100 points GW). I did count all cav and didnt count antilarge units as GW, you could maybe change the factor to 1:10 or even 1:5 but yeah. shock cavalry is way more common than GW infantry
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649
    RawSugar said:

    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?

    As usual we're short on data but going by this vid

    first that came up searching for wwc finals
    the numbers were:

    1st x vs x
    2nd x vs 1K GW&2Kcav
    3rd 5K cav vs 4K cav
    4th 3,5K cav vz x
    5th x vs 2K cav
    6th 6K cav vs 4K cav
    7th 3k cav vs 7k cav
    8th 2K cav vs 1KGW 2K cav
    9th 2K cav vs 2K cav

    sp 45K cav 2K GW (average ca 2,5K pr army cav and 100 points GW). I did count all cav and didnt count antilarge units as GW, you could maybe change the factor to 1:10 or even 1:5 but yeah. shock cavalry is way more common than GW infantry
    Uhh... Yeah. Shock Cav is literally more common than great weapon infantry. Like, there are literary more units of shock cav in the game. It's a very broad category that accounts for a large portion of cav in the game and includes everything from lightly armored dark riders, to heavy chaos knights, to AP Boar boyz. But like you said, you even counted none shock cav. If you're going to do that then why not count every single melee infantry in those battles? See how the numbers stack up after that.

    And you also rounded up so heavily in your numbers by that you actually overcounted by a few thousand. Why are you counting by point value anyway? Cavalry is almost universally more expensive than infantry Even the most expensive infantry unit in the game is still out costed by several cavalry units. Another crazy thing is that nearly a third of the Shock cav taken was in a single match were one player took nothing but cavalry.
    "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
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    like
    User_Clue said:

    RawSugar said:

    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?

    As usual we're short on data but going by this vid

    first that came up searching for wwc finals
    the numbers were:

    1st x vs x
    2nd x vs 1K GW&2Kcav
    3rd 5K cav vs 4K cav
    4th 3,5K cav vz x
    5th x vs 2K cav
    6th 6K cav vs 4K cav
    7th 3k cav vs 7k cav
    8th 2K cav vs 1KGW 2K cav
    9th 2K cav vs 2K cav

    sp 45K cav 2K GW (average ca 2,5K pr army cav and 100 points GW). I did count all cav and didnt count antilarge units as GW, you could maybe change the factor to 1:10 or even 1:5 but yeah. shock cavalry is way more common than GW infantry
    Uhh... Yeah. Shock Cav is literally more common than great weapon infantry.
    then why are you questioning it? and ofc you count unit use by value...
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,053

    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?

    RawSugar said:

    this isnt the cavalry forums its the balancing forums.
    Cavalry is already more commonly used than GW infantry and certainly more than hightier GW infantry.
    If cavalry wins head to head charges vs GW infantry it will get basically no damage from nonAP infantry in head to head charges
    Allowing infantry to hit back on the charge balanced the game, cavalry gets mobility, infantry gets durability and power

    Im not opposed as such to cavalry winning the charge, but if your aim is to balance the game you must give infantry some balancing buff. the most immediate, obvious buff is to give GW infantry charge defense vs large, but it could be a number of things, such as higher MA

    Pocman said:

    User_Clue said:

    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?
    I would personally like such a change, but if lances are to get their realistic reach, then they should also get realistic melee stats after the charge which would certainly be around zombie levels as you would expect from 5 meter long sticks on mounts. Spears would also need a similar reach.
    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.
    If we want to be accurate, they didn't change to a sword. They dropped the lance. Which means, only one charge. Per game.

    So... let's not go with pure realism.
    realism wise, after the charge they would go back to the line and pick up the next lance or the knights at the back that still have their lance be the front for the next charge.
    Ha! Most battles were won or lost on the charge. There was no cycle charging. This is not a historic thing!

    It's one and done. 40K Emperial Guard cavalry most realistic cavalry.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,158
    edited May 7
    Bastilean said:

    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?

    RawSugar said:

    this isnt the cavalry forums its the balancing forums.
    Cavalry is already more commonly used than GW infantry and certainly more than hightier GW infantry.
    If cavalry wins head to head charges vs GW infantry it will get basically no damage from nonAP infantry in head to head charges
    Allowing infantry to hit back on the charge balanced the game, cavalry gets mobility, infantry gets durability and power

    Im not opposed as such to cavalry winning the charge, but if your aim is to balance the game you must give infantry some balancing buff. the most immediate, obvious buff is to give GW infantry charge defense vs large, but it could be a number of things, such as higher MA

    Pocman said:

    User_Clue said:

    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?
    I would personally like such a change, but if lances are to get their realistic reach, then they should also get realistic melee stats after the charge which would certainly be around zombie levels as you would expect from 5 meter long sticks on mounts. Spears would also need a similar reach.
    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.
    If we want to be accurate, they didn't change to a sword. They dropped the lance. Which means, only one charge. Per game.

    So... let's not go with pure realism.
    realism wise, after the charge they would go back to the line and pick up the next lance or the knights at the back that still have their lance be the front for the next charge.
    Ha! Most battles were won or lost on the charge. There was no cycle charging. This is not a historic thing!

    It's one and done. 40K Emperial Guard cavalry most realistic cavalry.
    Depends, you have to reform the line and go charge the next line if you got through the first line. Is not like enemy is one big frontal line without depth.

    Cav can be disengaged , retreat and reform back at your own line. Charges can fail, then you retreat, find another place, charge again.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marignano

    Basically cycle charge


    Even if you forget about realism. in bretonnian book Calard they were cycle charging.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649
    RawSugar said:

    like

    User_Clue said:

    RawSugar said:

    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?

    As usual we're short on data but going by this vid

    first that came up searching for wwc finals
    the numbers were:

    1st x vs x
    2nd x vs 1K GW&2Kcav
    3rd 5K cav vs 4K cav
    4th 3,5K cav vz x
    5th x vs 2K cav
    6th 6K cav vs 4K cav
    7th 3k cav vs 7k cav
    8th 2K cav vs 1KGW 2K cav
    9th 2K cav vs 2K cav

    sp 45K cav 2K GW (average ca 2,5K pr army cav and 100 points GW). I did count all cav and didnt count antilarge units as GW, you could maybe change the factor to 1:10 or even 1:5 but yeah. shock cavalry is way more common than GW infantry
    Uhh... Yeah. Shock Cav is literally more common than great weapon infantry.
    then why are you questioning it? and ofc you count unit use by value...
    My point is, comparing shock cav to "great weapon" infantry doesn't make sense and means nothing. There is not real great weapon category. There are several units tag by the weapon they are using and even along those lines, there are units that aren't tag as having a "great" weapon who still behave identical to them. Cavalry is not categorized that way. Cav units with spears are sometimes listed as shock cav, and sometimes they aren't. A Cav with an actual great weapon can be classified the exact same way as a cav unit with a sword and shield, or a spear. There is a scythe infantry, but there is not Scythe cav. instead the cav with a scythe is in the same category as every other cav. Despite having their own unique unit icon, and using the exact same weapons as savage orcs (an axe) SOBB are still just shock cav.

    They aren't categorized by charge bonus either because there are none shock cav units with higher CB than some shock cav.

    Other than monster cav, there are only 2 times a unit is not categorized as shock or regular cav. Cold one Cav and magic cav. Everything else is somewhat arbitrarily put into just 2 categories. Image in infantry only had 2 categories. How different would your comparison look after that? Imagine if a theoretical "great weapon" category included units like regular orcs and basic spearmen. Your comparison wouldn't look nearly as one sided but that's essentially how cav categories in the game work.
    "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
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    edited May 7
    you could defo break it down some more. I'd say you could break infantry into antilarge, nonAP and AP (aka GW), ofc there's also tier but for this discussion id say those are the primary groups. Cavalry can be similarl broken into light, heavy, antilarge. Doing so you'd still get heavy cav being way more common than GW infantry. because despite GW infantry being somewhat favored vs heavy cavalry unless outmicroed, GW infantry has more weaknesses to other unit types than heavy cavalry. as long as thats the case buffing heavy cav at the expense of GW infantry, even targeting the specific interaction between the two unittypes only serves to further unbalance the game, the opposite of what this forum should be trying to do. regardless of what is "realistic" or "feels right"
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649
    RawSugar said:

    you could defo break it down some more. I'd say you could break infantry into antilarge, nonAP and AP (aka GW), ofc there's also tier but for this discussion id say those are the primary groups. Cavalry can be similarl broken into light, heavy, antilarge. Doing so you'd still get heavy cav being way more common than GW infantry. because despite GW infantry being somewhat favored vs heavy cavalry unless outmicroed, GW infantry has more weaknesses to other unit types than heavy cavalry. as long as thats the case buffing heavy cav at the expense of GW infantry, even targeting the specific interaction between the two unittypes only serves to further unbalance the game, the opposite of what this forum should be trying to do. regardless of what is "realistic" or "feels right"

    Those aren't categories in game. Those are categories you've made up; somewhat arbitrarily too. Shock cav is an actual in game category. How do the categories you've listed play into the distinction of shock cav? Are anti large not shock cav? Does that mean KotR and Blood knights aren't shock cav?

    If AP=GW in your categories, then why didn't you count every AP unit like eternal guard? Is it because they're anti large? Then surely if anit large GWs aren't actually GWs then anti large shock cav aren't actually shock cav. What actually makes a unit Shock cav?

    Now you've pushed the focus to heavy cav but still thought it was appropriate to count over 25 units of light cav? That's more the half the cav units you counted. At the same time you also didn't count nearly 20 units of AP infantry despite now saying that AP units are GW units.
    "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
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 497
    edited May 8
    I strongly disagree that GW are rarely seen only elite like chosen or marauder champions are rare. Others like white lions, longbead GW, regular marauder GW even black orcs are honestly pretty common the problem is many factions don’t have a GW equivalent and instead have a dedicated anti infantry or halberd unit instead.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    they are the categories that most units fall within. chaos has them most cleanly, most factions have some version of it.
    what category have I made up? these categories are used all the time.

    the discussion its not about just units named great weapon and shock cavalry, but more generally about nonAL infantry trading favorably in countercharge with cavalry. one of the first examples was with QK and i dont find the shock cavalry particularly important in gameplay, you want to charge with both types of cavalry as much as possible except against units with higher charge bonus.
    And yeah antilarge shock cav is primarily antilarge, thats their purpose on the field. blood knights antilarge bonus determines how you play them and the targets they focus a lot more than their somewhat larger charge bonus.

    and yeah i said depending how you divide the categorys ýou might reduce the factor as low as 1:5, because yes GW infantry sees some use but despite them being available to every faction except VP and TK they are not fielded all that commonly.

    Anyway, should we check the use based on those 6 categories or some other category or are you merely defelecting because you know your position is untenable?
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649
    RawSugar said:

    they are the categories that most units fall within. chaos has them most cleanly, most factions have some version of it.
    what category have I made up? these categories are used all the time.

    the discussion its not about just units named great weapon and shock cavalry, but more generally about nonAL infantry trading favorably in countercharge with cavalry. one of the first examples was with QK and i dont find the shock cavalry particularly important in gameplay, you want to charge with both types of cavalry as much as possible except against units with higher charge bonus.
    And yeah antilarge shock cav is primarily antilarge, thats their purpose on the field. blood knights antilarge bonus determines how you play them and the targets they focus a lot more than their somewhat larger charge bonus.

    and yeah i said depending how you divide the categorys ýou might reduce the factor as low as 1:5, because yes GW infantry sees some use but despite them being available to every faction except VP and TK they are not fielded all that commonly.

    Anyway, should we check the use based on those 6 categories or some other category or are you merely defelecting because you know your position is untenable?

    I'll admit I have a bias towards Cavalry, but that doesn't mean you weren't making a bad faith argument.

    You apparently wanted to make a point about heavy cav, but that wasn't the argument you put forward. Most of the cav units you counted weren't heavy cav. Instead you compared the pick rates of the incredibly broad category of "every single melee cavalry in the game" to a very narrow category, invented by you, to seemingly explicitly exclude several AP units.

    There is an average of over 3 melee cav units per faction in the game, but there is only 1 1/3 "great weapons" per faction based on how you've seemed to define it. Which do you think is going to picked more?

    If the goal was to look at AP non anti large infantry, then there were a lot you didn't include in your count. Are miners and nasty skulkers not AP units? Because you didn't count them.

    As far a price goes, because cav is generally more expensive, that's how you chose to compare them. You knew that comparing cost, rather than unit count, would favor your point more. Cost is not a measurement of how often something is taken, it's a best a measurement of investment, but that wasn't how you framed your argument. Consider this: If every HE and Empire army has a mage and HE mages cost more than empire mages on average, does that mean HE mages are a more common unit?


    If you actually include all the non AL AP infantry and only include heavy cav with no AL bonus the ratio is 1:1.5. That's no where near what you were saying (almost half the cav comes from one battle where someone used only cav). These categories are also more comparable to each other at 19:21 Cav vs GW. That being said, I still don't see how what this is really trying to say because there were still players investing a lot into decent quality, damage dealing melee infantry that just so happen to not be AP.
    "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
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    edited May 8
    you're still just deflecting, what schemata will you accept and lets count.
    ill agree skulkers and miners could be counted as GW, id happily add those, still very much doubt you'd get better than 1:5 which still supports my argument
    and no cost is not a bad faith argument. its how you count use regardless of the units you're counting.

    and the issue of AP infantry is important because those are the units trading favorably with cavalry on the countercharge. put dragon princes up against chaff or chaos warriors with shield and there's no countercharge issue. the basis of this discusion is a nerf of either all infantry or the little used GW infantry because of the extremely rare interaction between heavy cavalry and GW infantry, which is ridiculous when cavalry is used more often because outside that particular interaction its the stronger unittype atm.

    and again the issue is further than if AP infantry loses the exchange nonAP will be completely annihilated against cavalry that is often 120 armor.

    balancewise there is 0 good reason to buff the stronger, more commonly used unittype. and destroying the balance just because it doesnt "feel right" to have horses chopped up by heavy axes for some reason is just stupid.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649
    RawSugar said:

    you're still just deflecting, what schemata will you accept and lets count.
    ill agree skulkers and miners could be counted as GW, id happily add those, still very much doubt you'd get better than 1:5 which still supports my argument
    and no cost is not a bad faith argument. its how you count use regardless of the units you're counting.

    and the issue of AP infantry is important because those are the units trading favorably with cavalry on the countercharge. put dragon princes up against chaff or chaos warriors with shield and there's no countercharge issue. the basis of this discusion is a nerf of either all infantry or the little used GW infantry because of the extremely rare interaction between heavy cavalry and GW infantry, which is ridiculous when cavalry is used more often because outside that particular interaction its the stronger unittype atm.

    and again the issue is further than if AP infantry loses the exchange nonAP will be completely annihilated against cavalry that is often 120 armor.

    balancewise there is 0 good reason to buff the stronger, more commonly used unittype. and destroying the balance just because it doesnt "feel right" to have horses chopped up by heavy axes for some reason is just stupid.

    I'm not deflecting anything. My main issue was with the way you framed your argument.

    If you want me to disagree with you, then I will.

    Why should "Great weapon" infantry function as a good counter to Cavalry? There is already a type of infantry that's designed to be good against Cavalry: spears and halberds. They have charge defense to help against cav, but because of this new interaction, that attribute isn't necessary. Units like Black Guard and chosen have over 78 MA and do 88 damage on the charge. That's already more than chosen w/GW. It's not just the non anti large infantry that benefits from the change. Charge defense and bracing isn't even really worth it anymore on some of these units.

    Why is that a problem? Well Charge defense used to reward cav for their mobility and punish them when they couldn't/didn't use it. Now though, because infantry can turn around and counter charge practically on a dime Cav aren't getting as much from their mobility. On the other thread you said Cav should pay an extreme premium for mobility (40%) but that mobility isn't worth as much when getting behind an infantry unit can still result in your cav getting punished by a counter charge. Did you pull it off perfectly and hit them in the rear? You still end up losing models anyway after they get trapped. And there were already plenty of tools to reduce the value of mobility before this including snares, debuffs, summons, surrounds and more mobility.
    "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
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    you are. you questioned whether GW infantry are rarer than shock cavalry. i showed you they are you then questioned the methods and didnt offer a more valid alternative. thats deflection.

    I think generally slow melee should beat fast melee, because fast melee have an advantage other than being good in melee. thats pretty basic balancing.
    I dont have strong feelings about GW infantry winning the countercharge, id be fine with giving GW infantry charge defense against large or higher MA and lower CB, i do disagree with buffing units that are widely used/strong and nerfing units that are relatively little used/weak.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649
    RawSugar said:

    you are. you questioned whether GW infantry are rarer than shock cavalry. i showed you they are you then questioned the methods and didnt offer a more valid alternative. thats deflection.

    I think generally slow melee should beat fast melee, because fast melee have an advantage other than being good in melee. thats pretty basic balancing.
    I dont have strong feelings about GW infantry winning the countercharge, id be fine with giving GW infantry charge defense against large or higher MA and lower CB, i do disagree with buffing units that are widely used/strong and nerfing units that are relatively little used/weak.

    I didn't disagree or even question if GWs were rarer, I said that they're rarity as a matter of fact. They are a literality a rarer unit by your definition.

    I did then provide a better way to employ your method. I said, if you include all the appropriate infantry and avoided including inappropriate cavalry, and didn't use cost as a means to skew the results, you would have a more accurate representation of what you're trying to say.

    I can't even really say much about what's "better" for balance because these interactions are too abstract to make an objective claim. It'll come down to the collective conscious of the community to decide how things play out once the change has had more time to marinate. The only thing I can say is that it's more than fair to question the balancing of change made after several years worth of balancing that was made without the change to knockback. I think the real balancing question comes down to whether counter charging or bracing should the appropriate response to a cavalry charge. That's what the thread was originally opened to ask.
    "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
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 987
    edited May 8
    cost does not skew the result. if an army has 3 dragons and 5 spear, it uses dragons more than spears....
    if you want to compare the use of AP infantry to shock cavalry that works as well - you'll still get skock cavalry being much more common
    bracing does next to nothing without charge defense, a unit with charge defense will always be better off bracing vs shock cavalry, if there was a charge defense unit with high CB it might depend though. if you want GW infantry to brace then simply give them charge defense and halve their CB
Sign In or Register to comment.