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

Infantry counter-charging Cavalry gets 3 or 4 times more attacks than they should.

1235»

Comments

  • FrookFrook Registered Users Posts: 278
    Here is an idea, cavalry doesn't knock back units, only SEMs do. Create a separate unit type that includes only SEMs and perhaps some larger lords and heroes. This would solve both this problem with cavalry and make the game less floaty with infantry flying around. It makes sense when a huge monster throws around infantry but cavalry not so much.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    infantry deals the same damage charging infantry as they do charging cavalry so it would have 0 effect on the countercharge. but ye wouldnt mind falling down being a more common reaction than flying from being hit by a horse/monstrous infantry
  • KIT#5531KIT#5531 Registered Users Posts: 499
    Will CA fix these bugs? Or do they stopp working on W2 for W3?

  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,598

    I'll post my suggestion to reduce the overall damage spikes being seen:

    Change the charge bonus to include a % effective factor. This factor is based on the following:

    Max Reduction = Min[0.5, X * Mass.1 * Speed.1 / (Mass.1 * Speed.1 + Mass.2 * Speed.2)]

    Obviously vise-versa for the 2nd unit, and where X is the overall reduction factor.

    Essentially, the % effective factor would always be less than 1 and would apply like a damage reduction. So instead of a flat percent, the reduction value is based on speed and mass, giving more powerful cavalry a larger reduction in damage taken. This way, heavier and faster units would have a much higher effective trade over infantry units. This effective factor would only apply to two units charging each other.

    Really it is only a balance ratio of the momentum (not force) of the two objects hitting each other. (F = m*a) is not an appropriate item as the units are not really accelerating towards each other. A better measure would be the impact which is measured as a change in momentum or impact: delta Velocity * Mass = Integral (F*dt) from time 1 to time 2. But for simplicity, doing a ratio of the momentum based on the two units speeds, and the two unit masses, and then applying a % effective factor seems better.

    Something like savage orcs that are supposed to be big and have more momentum would trade differently than some smaller infantry units like goblins.

    The overall damage output of the two units charging each other would drop.

    Now, numbers may need to be tweaked as when I calc it out, the reduction in damage received (impact only) is 11% for the bestigors and 89% for the questing knights.

    I think capping the damage reduction to 50% would be a good start.

    I like your integral idea. Are we using standard Remannian integration here or we going the Lebesgue integral route? Would be useful to consider all the possible metric spaces to integrate over....

    But seriously, while your idea sounds interesting, I don't think CA will implement anything of this sort. Seems to complex for them. Something as simple as: small units charging cav get their CB reduced to 50%.
  • KIT#5531KIT#5531 Registered Users Posts: 499

    I'll post my suggestion to reduce the overall damage spikes being seen:



    I like your integral idea. Are we using standard Remannian integration here or we going the Lebesgue integral route? Would be useful to consider all the possible metric spaces to integrate over....

    We could introduce a suitable metric on an suitable Riemainan n-manifold to calculate the best results by minimizing the distances.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    I'll post my suggestion to reduce the overall damage spikes being seen:

    Change the charge bonus to include a % effective factor. This factor is based on the following:

    Max Reduction = Min[0.5, X * Mass.1 * Speed.1 / (Mass.1 * Speed.1 + Mass.2 * Speed.2)]

    Obviously vise-versa for the 2nd unit, and where X is the overall reduction factor.

    Essentially, the % effective factor would always be less than 1 and would apply like a damage reduction. So instead of a flat percent, the reduction value is based on speed and mass, giving more powerful cavalry a larger reduction in damage taken. This way, heavier and faster units would have a much higher effective trade over infantry units. This effective factor would only apply to two units charging each other.

    Really it is only a balance ratio of the momentum (not force) of the two objects hitting each other. (F = m*a) is not an appropriate item as the units are not really accelerating towards each other. A better measure would be the impact which is measured as a change in momentum or impact: delta Velocity * Mass = Integral (F*dt) from time 1 to time 2. But for simplicity, doing a ratio of the momentum based on the two units speeds, and the two unit masses, and then applying a % effective factor seems better.

    Something like savage orcs that are supposed to be big and have more momentum would trade differently than some smaller infantry units like goblins.

    The overall damage output of the two units charging each other would drop.

    Now, numbers may need to be tweaked as when I calc it out, the reduction in damage received (impact only) is 11% for the bestigors and 89% for the questing knights.

    I think capping the damage reduction to 50% would be a good start.

    I like your integral idea. Are we using standard Remannian integration here or we going the Lebesgue integral route? Would be useful to consider all the possible metric spaces to integrate over....

    But seriously, while your idea sounds interesting, I don't think CA will implement anything of this sort. Seems to complex for them. Something as simple as: small units charging cav get their CB reduced to 50%.
    Problem is that the issue is not isolated to infantry with a high cb, and it's not isolated to only affect charges into cav.... it needs a proper fix.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642


    there's very little difference in infantry countercharges, or vs braced or running. It's only cavalry ccountercharges where the changes now correctly reflect the strength of the units and the outcomes have been corrected. It seems to be connected to knockback.
    Still a mystery to me why you'd bring back a bug rather than tweak stats, or why you'd want GW infantry to be weak and lose CB vs large units...
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    RawSugar said:



    there's very little difference in infantry countercharges, or vs braced or running. It's only cavalry ccountercharges where the changes now correctly reflect the strength of the units and the outcomes have been corrected. It seems to be connected to knockback.
    Still a mystery to me why you'd bring back a bug rather than tweak stats, or why you'd want GW infantry to be weak and lose CB vs large units...

    For gods sake stop spamming your nonsense. Everybody including CA knows it's wrong now.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    ill stop posting when you stop lying :) and CA has made no such comment.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,518
    RawSugar said:



    there's very little difference in infantry countercharges, or vs braced or running. It's only cavalry ccountercharges where the changes now correctly reflect the strength of the units and the outcomes have been corrected. It seems to be connected to knockback.
    Still a mystery to me why you'd bring back a bug rather than tweak stats, or why you'd want GW infantry to be weak and lose CB vs large units...

    This is great data; did you collect it yourself? nice work if so.

    I've done a little testing with the two patches comparatively and see a bit of a wider spread on charge damage for bestigors for example pre vs post (more like 3x rather than 2x charge damage in the later patch). Regardless, nice work documenting some info.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    RawSugar said:

    ill stop posting when you stop lying :) and CA has made no such comment.

    How would you know. They have.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited August 2021
    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:



    there's very little difference in infantry countercharges, or vs braced or running. It's only cavalry ccountercharges where the changes now correctly reflect the strength of the units and the outcomes have been corrected. It seems to be connected to knockback.
    Still a mystery to me why you'd bring back a bug rather than tweak stats, or why you'd want GW infantry to be weak and lose CB vs large units...

    This is great data; did you collect it yourself? nice work if so.

    I've done a little testing with the two patches comparatively and see a bit of a wider spread on charge damage for bestigors for example pre vs post (more like 3x rather than 2x charge damage in the later patch). Regardless, nice work documenting some info.
    yes i got tired of going nowhere so tried to bring some data, i forgot how many people are immune to data.
    bestigors could be a matter of when you measure, the numbers im getting in current patch is 1600/1600 after 5 secs countercharging CK lancers which fits 37/20 attacks which again fits the ca 50% of each unit gets to attack (or rather about half and some twice), so it matches what im getting with the other infantry units

    I do feel like the new interaction is overly favorable for GW infantry - but much more fair for sword infantry. At the same time the new result reflects stats perfectly and allows an equal fair share to attack. To me bringing back the bug is not a good solution. haeavy cavalry still sees more use than GW infantry because they have more purposes, nerfing GW infantry with hidden debuffs in countercharge isnt a good solution. I could definitely see tweaking stats tho moving GW infantry away from CB and giving shock cavalry a little MD to help them in countercharge
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    RawSugar said:

    ill stop posting when you stop lying :) and CA has made no such comment.

    someone is out of the loop....lol
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642

    RawSugar said:

    ill stop posting when you stop lying :) and CA has made no such comment.

    someone is out of the loop....lol
    did they make a new comment you also minsinterpreted or is this the old comment you misinterpreted?
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,518

    RawSugar said:

    ill stop posting when you stop lying :) and CA has made no such comment.

    someone is out of the loop....lol
    if someone is out of the loop, just send them the quote from CA folks about what exactly has been said.

    I'm aware duck theorized the stag bug fix changed things unexpectedly; the data bears that out.

    My guess would be given especially the bad press they've gotten about the change that CA wants to address this in some way (i hope) but that doesn't mean they think the current interaction is due to a bug. If you have a quote to share from a developer, by all means share the info.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    RawSugar said:

    RawSugar said:

    ill stop posting when you stop lying :) and CA has made no such comment.

    someone is out of the loop....lol
    did they make a new comment you also minsinterpreted or is this the old comment you misinterpreted?
    never misinterpreted anything, that be you.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    edited August 2021
    Its an unbalanced interaction currently is the comment from CA.

    If its not bugged than it needs other ways of fixing which is good but when CA says it's an unbalanced interaction it means its not what they intended.
    Post edited by Lotus_Moon#2452 on
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    Its an unbalanced interaction currently is the comment from CA.

    If its not bugged than it needs other ways of fixing which is good but when CA says it's an unbalanced interaction it means its not what they intended.

    Exactly, what is a bug or just unintentional interaction outcome is impossible for us to know since we don't know exactly what was changed and in what way, but we do know that the interaction changed as a result of a change directed to fix something else and we do know that this outcome was not intended and as a result of that the interaction is now unbalanced.

    Hence, the current game mechanics is failing to produce the desired outcome and needs repairs. We can only speculate about the whys and hows, and hope for the when....
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,518

    Its an unbalanced interaction currently is the comment from CA.

    If its not bugged than it needs other ways of fixing which is good but when CA says it's an unbalanced interaction it means its not what they intended.

    All makes sense and rebalancing the interaction is probably better than other approaches to budding cav to be better at other things.

    That of course means the original state wasn’t necessarily ideal either; just that the current interaction is not what they want.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,358
    eumaies said:

    Its an unbalanced interaction currently is the comment from CA.

    If its not bugged than it needs other ways of fixing which is good but when CA says it's an unbalanced interaction it means its not what they intended.

    All makes sense and rebalancing the interaction is probably better than other approaches to budding cav to be better at other things.

    That of course means the original state wasn’t necessarily ideal either; just that the current interaction is not what they want.
    yep i do agree with that, when cav was charing spears and ignoring them and just pushing thru was very bad, it happened to other unit types also but with spears was most evident because you kinda expected spears to actually dmg the cav, i do think though that this got fixed when monsters etc got fixed, but definitely do not want to come back to that state either.

    For me its simply about finidn the rite balance between mutal charges whena ccounting for the type of untis that are going at each other.

    So no way in hell i want reavers to outrade black orcks on the charge, but something like chaos knights should not be scared to front charge orc big uns etc. When it comes to elite GW infantry i think it is fine if they trade close to simillar but lower gold ones not at all unless its vs ideal unit type.

    Actually thinking bit more about it i think the bigger the unit size is the bigger the issue so elites like black orcs and chosen GW could be performing only slightly better than before where as bigger unit size ones could be overperfroming to before.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    eumaies said:

    Its an unbalanced interaction currently is the comment from CA.

    If its not bugged than it needs other ways of fixing which is good but when CA says it's an unbalanced interaction it means its not what they intended.

    All makes sense and rebalancing the interaction is probably better than other approaches to budding cav to be better at other things.

    That of course means the original state wasn’t necessarily ideal either; just that the current interaction is not what they want.
    yep i do agree with that, when cav was charing spears and ignoring them and just pushing thru was very bad, it happened to other unit types also but with spears was most evident because you kinda expected spears to actually dmg the cav, i do think though that this got fixed when monsters etc got fixed, but definitely do not want to come back to that state either.

    For me its simply about finidn the rite balance between mutal charges whena ccounting for the type of untis that are going at each other.

    So no way in hell i want reavers to outrade black orcks on the charge, but something like chaos knights should not be scared to front charge orc big uns etc. When it comes to elite GW infantry i think it is fine if they trade close to simillar but lower gold ones not at all unless its vs ideal unit type.

    Actually thinking bit more about it i think the bigger the unit size is the bigger the issue so elites like black orcs and chosen GW could be performing only slightly better than before where as bigger unit size ones could be overperfroming to before.
    Aye nobody wants to make it imbalanced, I think the core issue to solve/simulate is that a cav charge "hits first" vs short handweapons, even though such a mechanics doesn't explicitly exist. That's the intuitive outcome that needs to be mimicked by the game mechanics. If it can succeed at that, then for example marauder gw can still retain their devastating charge into cavalry, they just have to make sure to not get hit by the cav charge first, let spears it chaff take that hit.

    I would say this is the clearest when looking at low armour elite cavalry like WR. The struggle a lot since they now trade down vs basic infantry like orc boys and flagellants etc.

    It's true that it appears to affect big difference in model counts the most, and that goes for both the infantry unit and the target unit, so things like monstrous cav, monstrous infantry and chariots get affected a lot too.

    As for cav running over infantry I didn't see much of that in the patch before stag, and if you did see it then it would be 2+ units hitting the same spear, and even then it would mostly be multiple units of chariots, demis, kroxigors, trolls etc, not typically 45 model cav. From what I have seen this is largely unrelated to mass/knockdown balance. I am pretty confident there are solutions that don't need to go heavy in the direction of splash power. There may be opportunities in restricting the number of attacks made during the excessive crowding that mutual charges cause to a larger extent than one sided charges.

    I think a challenge here lies in simulating hit first mechanics without actually making them hit first, because if you do (for example by making knockdowns cause damage) then you enable potent "ghost charging".... So we need the charging animations to play out, but there needs to be significantly different interactions in mutual charges and clean one sided charges, and mutual charges between shock lances and hand weapons needs to appropriately favor the lances, but without making one sided handweapon charges into cav weaker.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,518
    hit first mechanic is exactly the garbage the game does not need. Invulnerability frames tied to cycle charging are toxic for gameplay.

    Cav can be better than infantry at charging, but negating infantry attacks as a "reward" for lazy charges into counter charges is not good game design.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,518
    Green0 said:

    eumaies said:

    hit first mechanic is exactly the garbage the game does not need. Invulnerability frames tied to cycle charging are toxic for gameplay.

    Cav can be better than infantry at charging, but negating infantry attacks as a "reward" for lazy charges into counter charges is not good game design.

    cavalry was never immune to damage, monsters and SEs if anything were. Idk what game you have been playing but cavalry always took damage with each "free" cycle, keep in mind this is in a state of the game where models attacked less because they were trampled more, but still models who overextended into the middle of the enemy formation generally died.

    As for the lazy comment, I can't imagine anything less lazy than maneuvering cavalry. Cavalry is one of the unit types with the greatest amount of skill expression in this game. If cavalry is lazy, then everything else in the game is lazy. Foot missiles, camping a hill, etc. Perhaps your confusion stems from thinking that videogaming is a lazy activity, here yes I agree.
    I didn't say that counter charging did zero damage prior to the stag bug. I interpreted a first strike concept as trying to get to somewhere bad.

    charging into something when it is charging you requires zero skill and makes zero use of superior speed. It's fine if the unit is superior at it, but it's not some skillful tactic to get a special reward.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,590
    So where is the new CA quote on whats happening here?

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,788
    Given the number of warnings made to several members posting content here, both personally and in threads publicly, this thread is closed.

    I suggest a number of folks reread the Forum T&C, old and updated:

    1) Respect:]
    1.1 Please do not disrespect any other forum users, including volunteer moderators or CA staff
    1.2a Please do not practice negative behaviour: personal attacks/bashing/baiting/spamming, etc.
    1.2b Please do not use taunting/trolling (behaviour with the deliberate goal of being controversial or offensive)

    2 — Respect Everyone At All Times
    No harassment of others in any form. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, etc. are never tolerated. Do not attempt to by-pass profanity filters or any moderation guidelines. Be mindful of others by remaining civil, kind, keeping a discussion on-topic, and not derailing. While we are all passionate about games and welcome constructive discussion, keep it positive and avoid endlessly criticising.

    Thread closed.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

This discussion has been closed.