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

Is CA aware of the cavalry counter-charge bug?

gorgos96gorgos96 MemberRegistered Users Posts: 379
I am talking about the bug where infantry counter charge does quadruple the damage to charging cavalry?

Comments

  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 1,638
    If not it's not for a lack of trying. It's been brought up in all the places.

    I wouldn't expect a "hotfix" for this. That kind of bugfixing is only available for large companies. It is probably too expensive for a mid-sized company like CA.
    Ugh, I have spoken.
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 1,896
    I hope there will be a patch comming before the release of Warhammer 3 but the charge bug isn't the only one and so instead of releasing a bunch of hot fixes its probably better to make a single patch.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 5,130
    They're aware, but game 2 might not get patched anyway.
  • EnforestEnforest Registered Users Posts: 2,295
    Yannir said:



    I wouldn't expect a "hotfix" for this. That kind of bugfixing is only available for large companies. It is probably too expensive for a mid-sized company like CA.



    Demand more love for Empire, Greenskins and Beastmen! Playable Middenland with Cult of Ulric! Expanded Beastmen roster with Ghorgon and Jabberslythe! Bring back Black Orcs variants and Orc Big Boss heroes!
  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 1,638
    Enforest said:

    Yannir said:



    I wouldn't expect a "hotfix" for this. That kind of bugfixing is only available for large companies. It is probably too expensive for a mid-sized company like CA.

    People tend to misjudge the actual size of high profile companies like CA. Particularly gamers take a weird interest in the welfare and business of companies they purchase products of.

    "Multi-million" business is a weird flex since in that space anything less than millions is pocket change anyway.

    CA is not a "multi-million dollar corporation" in the sense that people often mean it. There's probably a bigger place of employment within a mile of you, likely several.
    Ugh, I have spoken.
  • CountTalabeclandCountTalabecland Registered Users Posts: 713
    Bold of you to assume it is a bug.

    CA has been slowly toning down heavy cav since Med II when it was very powerful.

    However, now we are to the place where Grail Knights have worse melee defense than Questing Knights and peasants have roughly double melee defense of Knights of the Realm. IK games need to balance but how does a peasant with a polearm have double the weapon skill of a living saint in steel armor with a shield?
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,609
    edited August 4
    Yes, they're aware, but they're not talking about it. Whether this means they've been on summer vacation, or they're trying not to interfere with Troy's marketing is anyone's guess.
  • FerestorFerestor Registered Users Posts: 1,256
    Jman5 said:

    Yes, they're aware, but they're not talking about it. Whether this means they've been on summer vacation, or they're trying not to interfere with Troy's marketing is anyone's guess.

    Or they are searching for a fix.. Sometime one bugfix creates more bugs.
  • MaelasMaelas Registered Users Posts: 4,806
    Yannir said:

    If not it's not for a lack of trying. It's been brought up in all the places.

    I wouldn't expect a "hotfix" for this. That kind of bugfixing is only available for large companies. It is probably too expensive for a mid-sized company like CA.

    Litteraly biggest video game company in the UK.

    Also, hotfixes and patches aren't some incredibly difficult and complex stuff that need millions of R&D and thousands of employees to do. Independent companies with 3 people working on their off-time manages to do it.

    Actually, every single video game company do hotfixes and patches. Only CA do the "only patch with DLC'" thing, and it's a conscious policy
    I believe in Slaanesh supremacy
  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,918
    As far as I know it is not a bug and it is caused by how units interact with eachother, I am guessing there is not a easy fix that does not cause other problems.
    If you see this lost little fellow please help him find his way home.
  • Cortes31Cortes31 Registered Users Posts: 1,923
    From what I understand it is not a bug but the result of other cavalry related bugs getting fixed.
  • steam_163135713382gsXFcdRsteam_163135713382gsXFcdR Registered Users Posts: 1,562
    I added an effect to all cavalry and monstrous infantry that gives them 90% ward save while they are charging at the enemy, so they take almost no damage during their initial charge. Not the proper way to fix it but seems to do the job until a real fix is provided, if that ever happens.
  • 55JoNNo55JoNNo Registered Users Posts: 2,105

    Bold of you to assume it is a bug.


    However, now we are to the place where Grail Knights have worse melee defense than Questing Knights and peasants have roughly double melee defense of Knights of the Realm. IK games need to balance but how does a peasant with a polearm have double the weapon skill of a living saint in steel armor with a shield?

    Bretonnia are just half arsed and broken in general and not great fun to pitch against the other races. Grail Knights should be much better. Really wish they hadn't been a FLC.

    Bohemond for game 3 please!

  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 1,095
    Cortes31 said:

    From what I understand it is not a bug but the result of other cavalry related bugs getting fixed.

    This.
    That doesn't mean it's the current interaction is desirable, but it is a result of them forcing damage to happen when attack rolls score a hit. It was probably never intended for charge damage to just go missing, but the issue wasn't noticed until stag knights.

    There are ways they could fix cav charges without going into the inner attack mechanics again by giving cavalry a way to knockdown a few entities from outside of infantry attack range (and there's more than 1 way to do that), but it's probably not super high priority, as cav is not in nearly as bad of a place as some have tried to claim (indypride's video comes to mind). It's not dead, and cavalry heavy builds are still fairly competitive in multiplayer.

    Any change they make will have some further reaching effects, so they need to be a bit careful about it, and they might end up looking at a different sort of fix to address some of the more basic problems with how shock cavalry is designed in the game instead (Eg: excessive charge bonus leading to a ton of wasted stats; particularly in most of the cases that have been called out as problematic - there's basic stat interactions here that make these engagements notably unfavorable for cav/shock cav when you dig into the numbers a bit further, and I don't think it's really desirable for cav to be able to kill infantry without taking damage in return).
  • gorgos96gorgos96 Member Registered Users Posts: 379
    edited August 4
    This.
    That doesn't mean it's the current interaction is desirable, but it is a result of them forcing damage to happen when attack rolls score a hit. It was probably never intended for charge damage to just go missing, but the issue wasn't noticed until stag knights.

    There are ways they could fix cav charges without going into the inner attack mechanics again by giving cavalry a way to knockdown a few entities from outside of infantry attack range (and there's more than 1 way to do that), but it's probably not super high priority, as cav is not in nearly as bad of a place as some have tried to claim (indypride's video comes to mind). It's not dead, and cavalry heavy builds are still fairly competitive in multiplayer.

    Any change they make will have some further reaching effects, so they need to be a bit careful about it, and they might end up looking at a different sort of fix to address some of the more basic problems with how shock cavalry is designed in the game instead (Eg: excessive charge bonus leading to a ton of wasted stats; particularly in most of the cases that have been called out as problematic - there's basic stat interactions here that make these engagements notably unfavorable for cav/shock cav when you dig into the numbers a bit further, and I don't think it's really desirable for cav to be able to kill infantry without taking damage in return).

    They should take damage, for sure. But right now, the damage trade off is not really balanced imo. Even chaff can damage a heavy cav charging head on.

    I also don't understand how this is not a bug? Doesn't this increase the damage output of the counter charging infantry beyond the intended levels?

    Also, charge damage has been lacking since way back. It used to be not effective becuase of the knockback effect but I'm not aware of this new bug that was introduced with stag knights. I played with them when they released and they were absolutely shredding enemy infantry, so didn't notice any problems there. What was the situation with them?
  • SephlockSephlock Registered Users Posts: 2,818
    I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Commander Quackers... I mean CA Duck... speculating about the root cause.

    So yeah, they know.
  • gorgos96gorgos96 Member Registered Users Posts: 379
    Sephlock said:

    I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Commander Quackers... I mean CA Duck... speculating about the root cause.

    So yeah, they know.

    and they acknowledge it as a bug right? Not as an intended and permanent change as some folks here suggest?
  • gorgos96gorgos96 Member Registered Users Posts: 379

    I added an effect to all cavalry and monstrous infantry that gives them 90% ward save while they are charging at the enemy, so they take almost no damage during their initial charge. Not the proper way to fix it but seems to do the job until a real fix is provided, if that ever happens.

    I checked your page but it seems you haven't published it. Do you have any plans to do so? This might work until CA fixes it.
  • SephlockSephlock Registered Users Posts: 2,818
    gorgos96 said:

    Sephlock said:

    I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Commander Quackers... I mean CA Duck... speculating about the root cause.

    So yeah, they know.

    and they acknowledge it as a bug right? Not as an intended and permanent change as some folks here suggest?
    IIRC they do, yes.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,720
    55JoNNo said:

    Bold of you to assume it is a bug.


    However, now we are to the place where Grail Knights have worse melee defense than Questing Knights and peasants have roughly double melee defense of Knights of the Realm. IK games need to balance but how does a peasant with a polearm have double the weapon skill of a living saint in steel armor with a shield?

    Bretonnia are just half arsed and broken in general and not great fun to pitch against the other races. Grail Knights should be much better. Really wish they hadn't been a FLC.
    Really wish they were just given a dlc and accompany massive rework.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • gorgos96gorgos96 Member Registered Users Posts: 379
    saweendra said:

    55JoNNo said:

    Bold of you to assume it is a bug.


    However, now we are to the place where Grail Knights have worse melee defense than Questing Knights and peasants have roughly double melee defense of Knights of the Realm. IK games need to balance but how does a peasant with a polearm have double the weapon skill of a living saint in steel armor with a shield?

    Bretonnia are just half arsed and broken in general and not great fun to pitch against the other races. Grail Knights should be much better. Really wish they hadn't been a FLC.
    Really wish they were just given a dlc and accompany massive rework.
    Im so sad that the devs basically confirmed Bretonnia won't be reworked or get a DLC...
  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 1,095
    edited August 4
    gorgos96 said:

    Sephlock said:

    I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Commander Quackers... I mean CA Duck... speculating about the root cause.

    So yeah, they know.

    and they acknowledge it as a bug right? Not as an intended and permanent change as some folks here suggest?
    It wasn't referred to as a bug, but also clearly wasn't an intentional change in interaction.
    gorgos96 said:

    This.
    That doesn't mean it's the current interaction is desirable, but it is a result of them forcing damage to happen when attack rolls score a hit. It was probably never intended for charge damage to just go missing, but the issue wasn't noticed until stag knights.

    There are ways they could fix cav charges without going into the inner attack mechanics again by giving cavalry a way to knockdown a few entities from outside of infantry attack range (and there's more than 1 way to do that), but it's probably not super high priority, as cav is not in nearly as bad of a place as some have tried to claim (indypride's video comes to mind). It's not dead, and cavalry heavy builds are still fairly competitive in multiplayer.

    Any change they make will have some further reaching effects, so they need to be a bit careful about it, and they might end up looking at a different sort of fix to address some of the more basic problems with how shock cavalry is designed in the game instead (Eg: excessive charge bonus leading to a ton of wasted stats; particularly in most of the cases that have been called out as problematic - there's basic stat interactions here that make these engagements notably unfavorable for cav/shock cav when you dig into the numbers a bit further, and I don't think it's really desirable for cav to be able to kill infantry without taking damage in return).

    They should take damage, for sure. But right now, the damage trade off is not really balanced imo. Even chaff can damage a heavy cav charging head on.

    I also don't understand how this is not a bug? Doesn't this increase the damage output of the counter charging infantry beyond the intended levels?

    Also, charge damage has been lacking since way back. It used to be not effective becuase of the knockback effect but I'm not aware of this new bug that was introduced with stag knights. I played with them when they released and they were absolutely shredding enemy infantry, so didn't notice any problems there. What was the situation with them?
    Sure, it's not exactly ideal right now, but it's not like cav is completely dead. Trading head on charges with infantry isn't the primary use case for cav.

    It's not a bug in the sense that the mechanics behind the interaction are working. It's not some issue in the code that needs to be changed. The issue here is a result of how the stats of the units interact when infantry are able to attack and deal damage reliably against cavalry on a countercharge. Previously, attacks from infantry vs cavalry were going missing even after attack rolls were made.

    The problem cases are shock infantry with high charge damage vs cavalry. Both are focused on charge damage, but cav trades durability for speed, and tends to end up with significant wasted charge bonus in excess melee attack, and either deals significant overkill damage or lacks the AP to punch through armour. That's a problem the infantry don't have, which results in the relative damage being quite a bit higher for the infantry (compared to the cost of the units) due to the higher HP.
    Things would likely be much different if cav stats were adjusted to reduce waste in their charge bonus (EG: lower damage/charge bonus, but much shorter attack intervals or collision attacks).

    The bug was that stag knights on release were not doing damage on the charge with many of their attacks - they were making attack rolls and scoring hits, but no damage was being dealt. My guess would be that it had to do with their animations; the implemented fix was "forcing" the damage to be dealt.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 944

    Bold of you to assume it is a bug.

    CA has been slowly toning down heavy cav since Med II when it was very powerful.

    However, now we are to the place where Grail Knights have worse melee defense than Questing Knights and peasants have roughly double melee defense of Knights of the Realm. IK games need to balance but how does a peasant with a polearm have double the weapon skill of a living saint in steel armor with a shield?

    What are you talking about? Peasant's don't even have half the Melee Defense of Knights of Realm. 10 is not twice as much as 26. Unless you only talking polearms, who have 50% more MD, but also have worse everything else in terms of stats. Polearms have a combined melee stat of 62 compared to Grail knights 68, but those grail knights also have 13 times the charge bonus.

    Grail knights only have 7 less MD than QK but are a shock cavalry. Grail Guardians have 19 more melee defense than QK. Their just different units. Heck Grail Guardians have better Melee Defense and Melee attack than the large majority of units in the game.
    "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
  • steam_163135713382gsXFcdRsteam_163135713382gsXFcdR Registered Users Posts: 1,562
    gorgos96 said:

    I added an effect to all cavalry and monstrous infantry that gives them 90% ward save while they are charging at the enemy, so they take almost no damage during their initial charge. Not the proper way to fix it but seems to do the job until a real fix is provided, if that ever happens.

    I checked your page but it seems you haven't published it. Do you have any plans to do so? This might work until CA fixes it.
    It's part of an experimental mod I'm doing that tweaks several battle variables. I'll probably release it soon although I doubt many people will like everything in it. It's more of a collection people need to edit for their own use, similar to my "Campaign Tweaks" mod.
  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 1,638
    Maelas said:

    Yannir said:

    If not it's not for a lack of trying. It's been brought up in all the places.

    I wouldn't expect a "hotfix" for this. That kind of bugfixing is only available for large companies. It is probably too expensive for a mid-sized company like CA.

    Litteraly biggest video game company in the UK.

    Also, hotfixes and patches aren't some incredibly difficult and complex stuff that need millions of R&D and thousands of employees to do. Independent companies with 3 people working on their off-time manages to do it.

    Actually, every single video game company do hotfixes and patches. Only CA do the "only patch with DLC'" thing, and it's a conscious policy
    Being the biggest video game company of UK barely means anything when the industry is mostly focused into the USA, China and Japan. It's easy to be the biggest of a small bunch.

    I'm just theorizing since I don't know the truth of the matter but it's likely that awkward mid-size that makes it un-economical. Not having low costs like indie studios or the high return of big studios. I've seen this phenomenon before, of bundling up patches, from other studios of similar size and resources.
    Ugh, I have spoken.
  • HL230P45HL230P45 Registered Users Posts: 254

    gorgos96 said:

    I added an effect to all cavalry and monstrous infantry that gives them 90% ward save while they are charging at the enemy, so they take almost no damage during their initial charge. Not the proper way to fix it but seems to do the job until a real fix is provided, if that ever happens.

    I checked your page but it seems you haven't published it. Do you have any plans to do so? This might work until CA fixes it.
    It's part of an experimental mod I'm doing that tweaks several battle variables. I'll probably release it soon although I doubt many people will like everything in it. It's more of a collection people need to edit for their own use, similar to my "Campaign Tweaks" mod.
    Yes, please do this. I have very limited modding experience but I think I can edit an existing mod.
  • griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,260
    gorgos96 said:

    Sephlock said:

    I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Commander Quackers... I mean CA Duck... speculating about the root cause.

    So yeah, they know.

    and they acknowledge it as a bug right? Not as an intended and permanent change as some folks here suggest?
    No in the post being mentioned CA duck never said it was a bug. He did mention be believed the change in performance during head on mutual charges was the result of fixing another bug where attacks were going missing on the charge.

    I have never seen CA actually say this is a bug.
  • steam_163135713382gsXFcdRsteam_163135713382gsXFcdR Registered Users Posts: 1,562
    HL230P45 said:

    gorgos96 said:

    I added an effect to all cavalry and monstrous infantry that gives them 90% ward save while they are charging at the enemy, so they take almost no damage during their initial charge. Not the proper way to fix it but seems to do the job until a real fix is provided, if that ever happens.

    I checked your page but it seems you haven't published it. Do you have any plans to do so? This might work until CA fixes it.
    It's part of an experimental mod I'm doing that tweaks several battle variables. I'll probably release it soon although I doubt many people will like everything in it. It's more of a collection people need to edit for their own use, similar to my "Campaign Tweaks" mod.
    Yes, please do this. I have very limited modding experience but I think I can edit an existing mod.
    There you go: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2566490321
Sign In or Register to comment.