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 the current patch the best ever for viable build diversity?

1235789

Comments

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959



    When it comes to micro/execution it depends on what the goal for the game is. If the goal is to make twwh a competitive esports like game, then execution needs to be rewarded. The skill ceiling must be high, otherwise its not very sensitive to skill. I know this is not a popular opinion here, but if you really want to make this game competitive, then more average players like the vast majority of us are, will be losing more often to the best players. That's why I think unit types and tactics in the spirit is sigvald is bad for the game. Why? Diversity is a good thing and many tactics should be viable etc, but my point is that unit types that require very little skill shouldn't be so high tier/dominant when it comes to shape the outcome of a competitive match. Xiphos (picking a random top player while he was still playing) would get waaay more value out of Waywatchers vs bret than I could because he is a better player, but we would get about the same value out of sigvald end games because anyone can execute sigvald....

    I know, unpopular opinion, but if the goal is to make twwh a competitive and entertaining esports game, then there will likely be a higher focus on execution skills. It's entertaining to see good players play bad builds well but it's not much entertainment in seeing a bad player win with a very good but low skill requirement build grinding it out successfully while being outplayed by not outplayed enough....

    I'm not sure how this could be an unpopular opinion, it is about the absolute broadest point that applies to any and all sport/esport of any type.

    Execution in all sport determines who wins at the highest level, try winning in the NBA at the moment if you can't execute on 3 pointers, or boxing if you can't either hit more than you get hit or knock people out, or soccer if you can't score goals or block them, etc etc.

    The whole discussion here is around what exactly should be the areas where players need to excel in order to be a top-tier player. To use the basketball analogy again, it isn't a coincidence that NBA players are often at least 1 standard deviation or more in height above the average population. That trait contributes to their ability to execute the skillset needed to perform well in the top levels of the NBA.

    This makes your read on Sigvald quite incorrect as well, sure in the current gameplay where you have to kill/rout Sigvald to end a match he is a relatively low skill unit but add capture points into the mix and that changes completely. Suddenly you need to make sure you are getting value with Sigvald throughout the game as well as you can't rely on an endgame grind to recoup his value. He needs to be in the right place at the right time, be that killing stuff, blocking points being captured, taking points etc. Sigvald could very easily end up as a higher skill unit than Waywatchers in a domination style game mode.

    TL;DR: You can't analyse which types of units are high skill in a vacuum, if the win condition for Domination turns out to be shooting a hot air balloon out of the air then Waywatchers will be a much lower skill unit than Sigvald as a slightly absurd example.
    I got distracted from replying to this one sorry.

    It's not popular here to say that some builds require less skill to play competitively, but I think it's just the way it is and we can like it or hate it, but it doesnt change the fact. If I use myself as an example I can play some builds at top performance also vs the very best players in the game, but if I pick a high micro build and bring it vs Lotus_Moon he will have me for breakfast. Both of us know the game mechanics equally well, we both understand positioning and army building equally well, but when that is done he has much more spare capacity than me to micro all units individually. So even if I can build to stand a decent chance of taking games off of him, people would pay to watch him play but nobody would spend a dime on me trying to cause an upset with lower skill builds. So in terms of entertainment I believe esports would move things further towards micro skills, not away from it.

    So domination could go both ways. If they make it good in terms of making the game competitive and entertaining it will cause and favour splitting forces and micro several engagements simultaneously, but if they do it wrong it will favour holding power.

    Either way, there is a big chance that it will change the spirit of the game, which risks to alienate many of the current players. Will it attract many more new players to make it a big success? Could go any direction..... I am still hoping for a very subtle implementation that doesn't change the core game.
    Just a question about "skill" (which incidentally gets back to the diversity issue that I derailed a bit), I think there are different types of skill that fit different playstyles. e.g. I don't think playing dwarves require less skill than full mobility, but different ones (or at least we could hope to reach that level). If you are slow, you have to anticipate more. You have to start moving your units earlier to be in position when responding to a threat. The thing is, there are plenty of factions in warhammer to express different types of skill. The grand challenge should be to balance factions around that, of course it will never be perfect and some factions will still be higher skill, but you can't start if you aggregate different skills in a single performance indicator and claim the game should favour your definition (something both sides tend to do).

    In starcraft typically (to take the balance ultimate benchmark) the 3 factions kind of follow those lines. I'm not a specialist but maybe terran is the most "micro" intensive, but it doesn't mean it requires less (edit: I mean more) skill than the others. Situation reading, getting your composition and timing right because you can't recover losses easily (protoss), or having an overwheling macro and understanding the overall resource trade (zerg) are as demanding.
    Sure, there are definitely different skill sets, and I think all of them are in play all the time to various degrees. The thing that I bounce on is when people think they are mutually exclusive, like if you have good micro you don't know how position or read the game. I don't think that is neither fair nor the way it works..... Some people also use the term micro in a negative manner like if it would just mean clicking fast on stuff.....

    If I would refer to one thing with "skill" it would be simultaneous capacity. Anyone can dodge shots with the mage, or position a box or rush with the entire army if that is the only thing to focus on. Skill for me is the simultaneous capacity to do all these tactical considerations, reading the game, filtering, prioritising and still have the capacity left to dodge shots etc, while also not making any major mistakes. In order of importance dodging comes as low priority, missing to dodge a shot will not cost you the game but mispositioning or forgetting you lord might.... So therefore it often means that a player who is good at dodging actually is also a very skilled player because he dodge shots while also doing all the other things well and making no big misplays.

    Builds or play styles that kind of requires less skill in my opinion are the ones that demand less of you attention to be competitive, or are more forgiving to misplays, or are just simplistic but effective.
    (Sorry to get back on that as it seems tangential but for me it is at the heart of how to design build diversity)

    Indeed I agree all skills are required to a degree, but the accent given to some makes for gameplay diversity. I would just add one thing: build spread also create some trade-off between skills. The more elite, the less split-attention it requires, but also the less forgiving to misplays. Taking the dread saurian ror mechanically reduces your need for simultaneous capacity, while requiring much more situation reading (e.g. estimating the amount of focus fire it will take if moved there, not overextending...). Wide cheap builds are more attention taxing and less reliant on perfect positioning. This is not against what you said, but I think it is a strong argument to justify small, elite builds (then you have small elite fast fragile builds with elves and it gets more complicated).

    Also all this is theoretical, like something to aim for, but then there is imperfect balance of course.
    I agree with this, the only thing i will add is the ability to micro well opens up different unit ussage in strategies, i think wide range of strategies should be viable, those with high and low micro requirement, the only advantage i can see if someone is good at clicking fast is simply adaptability during battle to what opponent is doing, but if you build a low "clicking" strategy from the get go and put pressure on opponent micro hardly matters. Only issue is often players take armies they are not used to using and QQ that micro is too important, i mean look at ninjahund in the past, he had a micro levels of a foot and yet he did superb because the armies he took focused on what he was good at which was game knowledge (knowing good and bad match-ups for units) but when it came to playing vs top players he did not shine as much because they had game knowledge and could adapt to his strategies a lot more.

    My view is all strategies should be viable be it high or low micro but being able to use all units in a roster to best possibility should be rewarded just as much as being able to pick a very good army.

    I do however think that some kind of micro is needed an people who try to eliminate a reasonable amount of micro from the game and sell it of as strategy is sily to me, i mean AI is a perfect example why some micro does = skill, play vs AI get him to blob on your hero or stand in his way and he walks into you thus not using micro to walk around and just smash him with AOE's, that be a super crap state of the game if human players did it also, might aswell have auto resolve at that stage.

    What good micro enables is execution of wider range of strategies, that does not mean those strategies are better than those of low micro like some people try to argue now and want reduction of micro.

    People are confusing skill of a player with ability to click fast.

    I played playeres with amazing micro who were bad at the game and i played players with micro of a foot who were superb at the game, a lot of people just refuse to adapt their armies/strategies and sometimes even factions to their own skill and instead try to force the game to change to adapt to them.
    Yes I completely agree with this. The discussion about skill vs builds here I think just stemmed from how domination mode and/or more esports-like game design direction would affect builds/diversity/skillset and whatnot, and my prediction there would be that a bigger focus on esports-like design would reward mobility and high micro more rather than less.
    I'm not certain it would reward it more but i think more strategy paths would be open and that could be seen as an advantage by being less predictable but i dont neccessery think more micro = better player, you need to be able to know what to do with that micro, but there is a need for certain level of micro to be a good player in general, if you cannot turn to face opponents or cant micro to disable fire at will when all shots are missing then no way the player will be good, and clicking in any form of shape is micro, likewise i think there are factions more suited to dynamic play and others more suited to perfromance with less "clicking", its kinda why people are frustrated with Wood elves at the moment, due to the current state of cav WE's went went from high skill faction to pull of wins to just a 20stack point and click. True long term WE mains are furious how WE's play currently as they consider it low skill approach, i think more respect would be given to the 20stack from WE's if they did have to fear cav head on when they pick dryad front line.
    Oh yes, not saying anything against that at all. I think the side-discussion we had about e-sports is just speculation as to what play styles hardcore e-sport games usually "reward". What people are willing to pay money to watch is usually the players with extremely good execution, not the players who are extremely good at deploying in defensive formation and respond to attacks (even if that is a perfectly important skill set as well in order to play this game). :)
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ODM_DacderODM_Dacder Registered Users Posts: 2
    I'd say the build diversity this patch is terrible. When you load into a game you can pretty reasonably guess what your opponents' build will be every single time and if they have a different build than expected it usually means you're getting an easy win. On top of that most factions have one or two build archetypes that apply to all matchups. I mean, let's just go down the list of factions.

    BM: Hero squad, typically with taurox, a gorebull, and a wild caster on a chariot with traitor kin. Frontline of ungors with double chariot and a bunch of mobility in support, usually including double centigor. You almost never see elite infantry, minotaur or cygor builds atm.

    BRT: Fay, double paladins, a bunch of chaff, 4-5 peasant bows, 4-6 cav. Nearly every Bret build is this atm.

    DE: Morathi, double manticore, chaff spam. Depending on the matchup you will either see scourgerunner spam or a bunch of darkshards.

    Dwarfs: Ironically have some of the best build diversity despite having one of the least diverse rosters. They can go wide with chaff spam or box up with elites as they always have.

    Empire: Sadly 20 stacking on Empire is by far the most common/strongest strat in most matchups atm. Either cheap cav or no cav at all with a ton of infantry and missile infantry.

    Greenskins: GS feel pretty bad atm but it's still usually grom, then either just a ton of decent quality infantry or stone trolls with chaff support and then cheap mobility spam.

    HE: The best monster faction isn't even taking monsters. Usually right now it seems to be a cheap lord, mid tier infantry spam and a bunch of missiles, sometimes with and sometimes without decent quality cav support.

    Lizardmen: LZM have some ok diversity compared to other factions, they can kite or go with a monster mash of various sorts, or do the tried and tested temple guard box. Even so, skink spam with a billion terradons is most common by far.

    Norsca: Kind of a dead faction atm but when they are played it's usually just skirmish cav spam, a monster or two and a bunch of inf.

    Skaven: Chaff, poisoned wind, gutter runners, rogres. Good lord diversity but the rest of the build is pretty much always the same.

    TK: Generally just chaff then chariot+mobility spam with arkhan the black. They can at least do some monster mash stuff still though so it's not that bad for them.

    Coast: In pretty much every half decent coast matchup right now it's deck droppers spam with noctilus, double gunnery wight and a bunch of chaff.

    Counts: A couple elite infantry, a mortis of some sort, relatively cheap mobility spam, a ton of zombies and if the matchup calls for it a bunch of fell bats. OK diversity in lords and monsters though ghorst and vargulfs can be applies to nearly every matchup atm.

    Chaos: Sigvald or Sarthoreal, Missile cav spam, double manticore, great weapon spam. I just described 95% of chaos builds this patch.

    Wood Elves: Glade guard spam is pretty overbearing and is at least decent in nearly every matchup. In some matchups waywatchers or swiftshiver shards are still superior. There are also still various cheeses, most notably hawk rider spam. I'd say WE are in the upper echelon of build diversity this patch but glade guard and waystalkers could still do to be less prevalent.


    In total it's pretty much just spam cheap infantry, cheap missiles, and then the cheapest mobility you can get away with while still somewhat protecting your back line. Cav are pretty bad (HE and EMP, two of the best cav factions, are shying away from them heavily) and dragons are just sad (seriously when's the last time you saw a forest dragon or hell even a star dragon do well in competitive)
  • ODM_DacderODM_Dacder Registered Users Posts: 2
    OK I just typed up a super long comment that the forum bugged out and ate so that's nice. Not gonna bother re-typing everything so I'll just TLDR it:

    Build diversity is really really bad right now. Nearly every faction is using the same formula of cheap infantry (sometimes mid tier), cheap missiles, then generally the cheapest mobility they can get away with. Some units like manticores are super overbearing and pretty much ubiquitous for the factions that have them. Elite builds are usually pretty bad though elite infantry can be mixed in to chaff clear.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,683

    OK I just typed up a super long comment that the forum bugged out and ate so that's nice. Not gonna bother re-typing everything so I'll just TLDR it:

    Build diversity is really really bad right now. Nearly every faction is using the same formula of cheap infantry (sometimes mid tier), cheap missiles, then generally the cheapest mobility they can get away with. Some units like manticores are super overbearing and pretty much ubiquitous for the factions that have them. Elite builds are usually pretty bad though elite infantry can be mixed in to chaff clear.

    to me elites seems to get mixed in because you have what you want already and 5 slots left with 4000g left, so people thrown in elties here or there because yess they can work, but i really dont think anyone builds an army around elites or cav or kite at the moment, its more like the kite elements, cav, elites get thrown in because of spare gold + slots, monsters also. 100% agree its same formula over and over and diversity is almost non existant, the only time yu see armies that dont follow that formula seems to be from players that simply hate that style of play, but even they are sometimes required to follow it (i speak from expierance with that statement)
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited August 30

    OK I just typed up a super long comment that the forum bugged out and ate so that's nice. Not gonna bother re-typing everything so I'll just TLDR it:

    Build diversity is really really bad right now. Nearly every faction is using the same formula of cheap infantry (sometimes mid tier), cheap missiles, then generally the cheapest mobility they can get away with. Some units like manticores are super overbearing and pretty much ubiquitous for the factions that have them. Elite builds are usually pretty bad though elite infantry can be mixed in to chaff clear.

    You won't change that by dumbing down cavalry again. Don't tell me the old infinite knockdown meta had great build variety. It didn't. You always went wide with infantry since elite infantry has been in a terrible spot in forever.

    You change that by making magic about 90% less braindead simplistic and nerf ranged troops. As long as you can control the flow of battle with a cheap mage that can be given tons of survivability and as long as ranged troops can throw out tons of DPS at their own leisure, this game won't truly move forward.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959


    ...the old infinite knockdown meta had great build variety.

    ....is a myth. It is as true as the current infinite infantry charge damage meta.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001


    ...the old infinite knockdown meta had great build variety.

    ....is a myth. It is as true as the current infinite infantry charge damage meta.
    I thought your greatest fear was the infantry turtle and boxing up meta? You for sure complained about it often enough and used it as excuse for why you oppose any and all buffs to melee infantry.

    In that case you should be elated about this result since it encourages an aggressive playstyle and discourages boxing.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    No idea what you're trying to say, but cavalry never did anything infinite in this game, and certainly not in patch 1.10.2 which I have shown over and over again in hard numbers and graphs, comparing patch 1.10.2 directly against patch 1.12.0. Tired of such memes being thrown around since it's direct misinformation.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • PippingtonPippington Registered Users Posts: 2,284
    edited August 30

    If I would refer to one thing with "skill" it would be simultaneous capacity. Anyone can dodge shots with the mage, or position a box or rush with the entire army if that is the only thing to focus on. Skill for me is the simultaneous capacity to do all these tactical considerations, reading the game, filtering, prioritising and still have the capacity left to dodge shots etc, while also not making any major mistakes.

    I know I'm late to this comment, but it jumped out to me as something I wanted to comment on - I think this is still super reductive and missing a lot of stuff that goes into who wins a good competitive match.

    My ability to build a good army is not at all a function of how many tasks I can do in parallel. Neither is my ability to predict my opponent's build, or to read the map and deploy well. Once the battle clock starts, on most maps I'm still only under weak time pressure when I'm reading my opponent's intentions and predicting their battle-plan from what they've brought and how they've set it up. If I get good forward planning in in this early stage then it can remove the need for me to be doing a bunch of complex things simultaneously later on. And even when things do get hectic and everything's engaging at once, the knowledge of which engagements to take and which to refuse is a skill that's independent of how fast you can execute those decisions in parallel. All these things can be really big factors.

    When people talk about 'armies that need less micro than the opponent', there's usually a pejorative implication that that means a blob or a box of some kind - but I think it's equally important to acknowledge that there are ways to achieve that through strategy and forward planning that are rewarding to play and enjoyable to watch, where it's clear that one player has out-planned the other. I know I always use Morgengrat as an example here (because I think he's a good one), but to give a converse example - if you ever watched Ninjahund run his 'ruler-straight line of Forsaken + 3 shaggoths' army, he was executing lots of orders plenty fast and performing simultaneous tasks just as well as anyone else. The strategic layer in real-time battles is real and important, and I think most people have a reasonable intuitive appreciation for it too.



    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959

    If I would refer to one thing with "skill" it would be simultaneous capacity. Anyone can dodge shots with the mage, or position a box or rush with the entire army if that is the only thing to focus on. Skill for me is the simultaneous capacity to do all these tactical considerations, reading the game, filtering, prioritising and still have the capacity left to dodge shots etc, while also not making any major mistakes.

    I know I'm late to this comment, but it jumped out to me as something I wanted to comment on - I think this is still super reductive and missing a lot of stuff that goes into who wins a good competitive match.

    My ability to build a good army is not at all a function of how many tasks I can do in parallel. Neither is my ability to predict my opponent's build, or to read the map and deploy well. Once the battle clock starts, on most maps I'm still only under weak time pressure when I'm reading my opponent's intentions and predicting their battle-plan from what they've brought and how they've set it up. If I get good forward planning in in this early stage then it can remove the need for me to be doing a bunch of complex things simultaneously later on. And even when things do get hectic and everything's engaging at once, the knowledge of which engagements to take and which to refuse is a skill that's independent of how fast you can execute those decisions in parallel. All these things can be really big factors.

    When people talk about 'armies that need less micro than the opponent', there's usually a pejorative implication that that means a blob or a box of some kind - but I think it's equally important to acknowledge that there are ways to achieve that through strategy and forward planning that are rewarding to play and enjoyable to watch, where it's clear that one player has out-planned the other. I know I always use Morgengrat as an example here (because I think he's a good one), but to give a converse example - if you ever watched Ninjahund run his 'ruler-straight line of Forsaken + 3 shaggoths' army, he was executing lots of orders plenty fast and performing simultaneous tasks just as well as anyone else. The strategic layer in real-time battles is real and important, and I think most people have a reasonable intuitive appreciation for it too.

    Yea we didn't touch upon experience and knowledge at all, which is super important, but presumably kind of similar regardless of playstyle and game mode?
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • PippingtonPippington Registered Users Posts: 2,284
    edited August 30
    IDK why you'd assume the variance in depth of knowledge, or in experience, is narrower than in APM or multitasking. And knowledge/experience is only one of six things I mentioned. The way players plan ahead varies hugely depending on their style, and so does the ability + willingness to read their opponent.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    edited August 30

    IDK why you'd assume the variance in depth of knowledge, or in experience, is narrower than in APM or multitasking. And knowledge/experience is only one of six things I mentioned. The way players plan ahead varies hugely depending on their style, and so does the ability + willingness to read their opponent.

    I don't know, did i assume that? We were just mostly discussing the things happening while you play, not as much how well you prepared before you played.... I am agreeing that is very important for your chances of winning.

    As for what is going on while you play, there I am just assuming that the micro part would probably be more in focus if the game takes a direction towards esports in the future, vis-a-vis macro. I am not saying that is good or bad, just that I would assume that the players with the best execution skills are the ones that will attract a crowd. It's not all you need for winning games though, definitely not. 😉

    Edit: I should probably add that I also agree that knowledge and experience reduced the load on your capacity because you know what to do without thinking. Just so that it doesn't come out wrong.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 744
    Cavalry was never the problem back then though it was chariots and SEM that don’t shed models when they take damage. Cavalry was certainly good but it wasn’t op that meta of infinite knockdown will never happen again as long as infantry mass stays healthy by comparison. Unless the goal is to make chariots broken as BM right now which everyone can agree shouldn’t be like that. Last patch was pretty good it wasn’t perfect but was getting there current one hurts. I’ve played maybe 10 QB this whole patch just bcus it feels janky it’s not just the cavalry/infantry interactions it’s all the other bugs aoes hitting way more than the should, nets basically doing nothing etc. combination of everything feels off.
  • |Sith|Dacder|Sith|Dacder Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8

    OK I just typed up a super long comment that the forum bugged out and ate so that's nice. Not gonna bother re-typing everything so I'll just TLDR it:

    Build diversity is really really bad right now. Nearly every faction is using the same formula of cheap infantry (sometimes mid tier), cheap missiles, then generally the cheapest mobility they can get away with. Some units like manticores are super overbearing and pretty much ubiquitous for the factions that have them. Elite builds are usually pretty bad though elite infantry can be mixed in to chaff clear.

    You won't change that by dumbing down cavalry again. Don't tell me the old infinite knockdown meta had great build variety. It didn't. You always went wide with infantry since elite infantry has been in a terrible spot in forever.

    You change that by making magic about 90% less braindead simplistic and nerf ranged troops. As long as you can control the flow of battle with a cheap mage that can be given tons of survivability and as long as ranged troops can throw out tons of DPS at their own leisure, this game won't truly move forward.
    It absolutely did have build variety. Empire for example used to have demiblobs, half boxes with empire knights or kotbs, full kite builds, or defensive box builds. High elves used to have aggressive rush builds, dragon builds, balanced builds or, again, builds which looked like current ones. I could go on and on.

    Now, not every build was viable in every single matchup obviously. But at least you couldn't just copy paste one build archetype, use it across all 15 matchups, and call it a day.

    I've never bought the "missile units op" thing. Sure in some cases they are (glade guard stafire shafts for example), but by and large when the game actually WORKED properly the strongest style was rushing. Not much stronger than anything else mind you, but running forward and mostly or entirely forgoing missile units was an extremely viable strat. Now though, with inf bugged, there's no shock damage to punish overly missile heavy builds, so yes, at the moment because of the inf bug missiles are OP. But they weren't before.

    Not sure what exactly you mean by magic being braindead, but I don't disagree they're affected heavily by magic, as are all elite troops.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,371
    edited August 30
    if chariots arent better at dealing with infantry than cavalry they are useless. if they are tangibly better say 50% better that either means cavalry should be weaker than infantry or that chariots should completely dominate infantry. the latter seems untenable which means cavalry as is, is the right balance and the issue is some chariots - and chariot-like SEs - being too weak.

    Chaff+ranged should be hard countered by fast antiinfantry units, not fast generalist units, and thats indeed how it works, at least they are reasonably advantaged, chariots could still use a small buff. If ppl cant deal with chaff its because they've become addicted to cavalry being OP - there's a lot of units that beat chaff+ranged, cavalry just isnt and shouldnt be one of them - not without outmaneuvering opponent
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 744
    Again when was cavalry ever over powered last patch. The discussion isn’t about a patch where cavalry dominated the meta it’s discussing this one. I have no issues with chariots being good but in the current patch the ones got changed are overpowered. Also only certain single entities are weak right now namely dragons and few of our biped ones.

    Also ranged assuming archer/crossbow/handguns etc should really be countered by almost any fast unit in melee dogs/chariots/cavalry.

    Ranged infantry shouldn’t be designed to last in melee with the exception of hybrid melee variants.
  • |Sith|Dacder|Sith|Dacder Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8
    edited August 30
    RawSugar said:

    if chariots arent better at dealing with infantry than cavalry they are useless. if they are tangibly better say 50% better that either means cavalry should be weaker than infantry or that chariots should completely dominate infantry. the latter seems untenable which means cavalry as is, is the right balance and the issue is some chariots - and chariot-like SEs - being too weak.

    Chaff+ranged should be hard countered by fast antiinfantry units, not fast generalist units, and thats indeed how it works, at least they are reasonably advantaged, chariots could still use a small buff. If ppl cant deal with chaff its because they've become addicted to cavalry being OP - there's a lot of units that beat chaff+ranged, cavalry just isnt and shouldnt be one of them - not without outmaneuvering opponent

    you do realize btw that chariots are screwed over by the infantry bug too right? even the bugged ones take a ton of damage on counter charge. there's no defense for the infantry bug. cav was not OP before. Only people who think so are those with broken hands who can't micro to save their lives.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,371
    cavalry was slightly too good and infantry slightly too bad in 1.10, especially nonAL infantry. pivoting away from AL infantry and cavalry should diversify - but only if there is a strong counter vs ranged, chariots is perfect because they are weak to cavalry.

    ranged is vulnerable to any fast unit, people still build just a few ranged units if fast melee is likely - and will usually get punished if they get too much ranged vs fast melee. cavalry was slightly too good before because it both had the ability to counter ranged and nonAL infantry while still being decent vs other large units (or strong in the case of AL cavalry). Ideally if you want a fast antiranged unit you should have to pick a antiinfantry unit which will have other weaknesses. the bugged chariots are clearly too strong im still not sure if the other got some kind of buff - they needed one.

    Dragons arent affected by countercharge so they should see next to no change
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,371

    RawSugar said:

    if chariots arent better at dealing with infantry than cavalry they are useless. if they are tangibly better say 50% better that either means cavalry should be weaker than infantry or that chariots should completely dominate infantry. the latter seems untenable which means cavalry as is, is the right balance and the issue is some chariots - and chariot-like SEs - being too weak.

    Chaff+ranged should be hard countered by fast antiinfantry units, not fast generalist units, and thats indeed how it works, at least they are reasonably advantaged, chariots could still use a small buff. If ppl cant deal with chaff its because they've become addicted to cavalry being OP - there's a lot of units that beat chaff+ranged, cavalry just isnt and shouldnt be one of them - not without outmaneuvering opponent

    you do realize btw that chariots are screwed over by the infantry bug too right? even the bugged ones take a ton of damage on counter charge. there's no defense for the infantry bug. cav was not OP before. Only people who think so are those with broken hands who can't micro to save their lives.
    yes chariots need a buff now that the interaction has been fixed. the issue is still really simple tho.

    if chariots arent better at dealing with infantry than cavalry they are useless. if they are tangibly better say 50% better that either means cavalry should be weaker than infantry or that chariots should completely dominate infantry. the latter seems untenable which means cavalry as is, is the right balance and the issue is some chariots - and chariot-like SEs - being too weak.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,959
    Let me add a few points to what Dacder says, he's entirely right about both variety and the state of these interactions.

    About variety I'd like to add that the meta we have now, was already very present before the change to infantry interactions with higher mass units. In 1.10.2, and even before that, we had loads of matchups where you'd expect, or at least be very aware of the possibility, to face a wide 16-20 stack. It would involve most matchups vs SKV, GS, VP, BM, BRT, which is kind of in their nature, but you'd likewise often see very wide builds from HE, WE, EMP, TK, DWF (not counting VC since... well VC). There are many example, some of the most common would be WE vs LIZ & GS or HE vs TK & VP, or EMP vs LIZ etc, etc. And some 5 out of 15 factions (not counting VC) were almost always super wide.

    We did have a very varied meta back then, because in addition to the dominating meta today we had a bigger presence of other build styles.

    As for cavalry and chariots, it's true that chariots are more specialized tools vs infantry, but they are not comparable to cav one for one because they are different. Chariots (focusing on heavy melee chariots now) have 3 models and high momentum, which allows them to pull through infantry in a way that cavalry never could, and they would typically do so without losing models until at very low health. Cavalry on the other hand would bleed models for every cycle charge into infantry, and suffer much more attrition. Furthermore cav would be more vulnerable to indirect artillery and most spell types dealing damage. Then cav would have other benefits like being able to pin stuff in and to fight better in cav vs cav engagements. They definitely had different profiles even if both were filling an anti-infantry function in some builds. More often than not, the main role of cav would be to kill or block other cav though.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,371
    chariots being less vulnerable to aoe etc are minor issues vs the fact that chariots (that arent broken) are nigh useless against anything but infantry, cavalry is decent against other large units, even good if AL.
    Also the advantages chariots enjoy compared to cavalry are more than balanced by their extremely low hitpoints.
    there just isnt room for both being strong against infantry, except maybe if chariots gain the ability to punch through infantry and even push through CD infantry and light cavalry, making them more antiranged than antiinfantry in general.
  • |Sith|Dacder|Sith|Dacder Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8
    Okay Sugar, let's follow your logic then (which is flawed in this case BTW because chariots were ALWAYS better at pushing through infantry and wrecking havoc in backlines).

    Why should great weapon infantry be better than halberds against literally every single unit type? The problem here clearly isn't cavalry or chariots. The problem is absolutely with great weapon infantry.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    edited August 31

    I'd say the build diversity this patch is terrible. When you load into a game you can pretty reasonably guess what your opponents' build will be every single time and if they have a different build than expected it usually means you're getting an easy win. On top of that most factions have one or two build archetypes that apply to all matchups. I mean, let's just go down the list of factions.

    BM: Hero squad, typically with taurox, a gorebull, and a wild caster on a chariot with traitor kin. Frontline of ungors with double chariot and a bunch of mobility in support, usually including double centigor. You almost never see elite infantry, minotaur or cygor builds atm.

    BRT: Fay, double paladins, a bunch of chaff, 4-5 peasant bows, 4-6 cav. Nearly every Bret build is this atm.

    DE: Morathi, double manticore, chaff spam. Depending on the matchup you will either see scourgerunner spam or a bunch of darkshards.

    Dwarfs: Ironically have some of the best build diversity despite having one of the least diverse rosters. They can go wide with chaff spam or box up with elites as they always have.

    Empire: Sadly 20 stacking on Empire is by far the most common/strongest strat in most matchups atm. Either cheap cav or no cav at all with a ton of infantry and missile infantry.

    Greenskins: GS feel pretty bad atm but it's still usually grom, then either just a ton of decent quality infantry or stone trolls with chaff support and then cheap mobility spam.

    HE: The best monster faction isn't even taking monsters. Usually right now it seems to be a cheap lord, mid tier infantry spam and a bunch of missiles, sometimes with and sometimes without decent quality cav support.

    Lizardmen: LZM have some ok diversity compared to other factions, they can kite or go with a monster mash of various sorts, or do the tried and tested temple guard box. Even so, skink spam with a billion terradons is most common by far.

    Norsca: Kind of a dead faction atm but when they are played it's usually just skirmish cav spam, a monster or two and a bunch of inf.

    Skaven: Chaff, poisoned wind, gutter runners, rogres. Good lord diversity but the rest of the build is pretty much always the same.

    TK: Generally just chaff then chariot+mobility spam with arkhan the black. They can at least do some monster mash stuff still though so it's not that bad for them.

    Coast: In pretty much every half decent coast matchup right now it's deck droppers spam with noctilus, double gunnery wight and a bunch of chaff.

    Counts: A couple elite infantry, a mortis of some sort, relatively cheap mobility spam, a ton of zombies and if the matchup calls for it a bunch of fell bats. OK diversity in lords and monsters though ghorst and vargulfs can be applies to nearly every matchup atm.

    Chaos: Sigvald or Sarthoreal, Missile cav spam, double manticore, great weapon spam. I just described 95% of chaos builds this patch.

    Wood Elves: Glade guard spam is pretty overbearing and is at least decent in nearly every matchup. In some matchups waywatchers or swiftshiver shards are still superior. There are also still various cheeses, most notably hawk rider spam. I'd say WE are in the upper echelon of build diversity this patch but glade guard and waystalkers could still do to be less prevalent.


    In total it's pretty much just spam cheap infantry, cheap missiles, and then the cheapest mobility you can get away with while still somewhat protecting your back line. Cav are pretty bad (HE and EMP, two of the best cav factions, are shying away from them heavily) and dragons are just sad (seriously when's the last time you saw a forest dragon or hell even a star dragon do well in competitive)

    Interesting comment but to add a bit of context this discussion is more around whether or not the current cav/chariot/infantry interactions are leading to more build diversity rather than the state of build diversity overall. And it is important to separate these out because there is a lot going on in this patch so pinning it all on this interaction (which is in a much better state currently) will lead to some mistakes in balancing that will risk leading back to the very restrictive mobility + ranged mobility spam at top level play.

    For instance in the builds you gave, you highlighted that feral manticores are near ubiquitous picks for the factions that can bring them. And I agree with this, but blaming this on the current infantry/cavalry/chariot balance doesn't make any sense. How have flying cheap SEMs been altered at all by the relative damage trade of infantry/cavalry/chariots? Clearly they haven't been so we can't blame the infantry balance as the cause of their prominence in the meta.

    Of the builds you list, I notice that SEM/SE spam is a common thread:

    - BM Hero Squad
    - Fay Hero Squad
    - Noctilus Hero Squad
    - Morathi Manticore Squad
    - Chaos LL Manticore Squad
    - Ghorst Varghulf Squad (I would say Wight Kings fit in here too).

    This is more of an ongoing issue with SEMs/SEs and we already know that CA is introducing wounds in game 3 almost certainly because of the consistent overperformance of SEMs/SEs. It also seems likely that Feral Manticores are undercosted, but that is a more traditional balancing concern rather than telling us anything of import about infantry/cavalry/chariot interactions.

    And then on top of that looking at the Fay/Morathi, both have magic resist which is going to be nerfed in game 3, and Morathi was widely considered overpowered BEFORE the AOE bug made her Soul Stealers even mightier. These all seem like traditional balancing issues (like Grom being too strong or Throt or Ariel etc) rather than telling us much about the state of build diversity or why such a wide selection of unit's are now easily fit into builds compared to past patches.

    Then if we look at something like Wood Elves, Glade Guard wide builds started almost immediately after the release of the T&T patch which precedes the infantry/cavalry/chariot interactions of the current patch. So once again this seems like a more standard balancing issue where Glade Guard are undercosted rather than telling us anything about infantry interactions.

    The skirmish spam from Chaos/Norsca has also been onoging for a while now. This is more to do with how kiting is very strong vs these factions and skirmish cav are by far the best tool these factions possess to counter this strategy. Slow melee factions currently face a big problem where because opponents don't need to hold any ground due to game design (no capture points) there is no reason to take melee engagements against them. Unlike Beastmen or Greenskins, Chaos/Norsca don't really possess the mix of utiltiy/speed that BM/GS use to prevent being kited, so they have to lean exceptionally hard into the few tools they have available. Norsca definitely needs outright and quite significant buffs in general, whereas Chaos will be able to invest less in their skirmish cav once capture points allow them to pressure opponents to engage in melee more easily.

    In terms of the builds that you listed as near ubiquitous, I see little evidence to suggest that is true when I look through the builds brought to different tournies and my own experiences on QB or watching others stream (for instance the build diversity brought by and against Lotus on his streams is very high currently). I would say even the matches you have been involved in don't appear to follow that pattern. This isn't to say those types of builds aren't brought and don't do well, but if we take something like the Empire 20 stack, I would be curious how common it would be to see this style of play without Volkmar as the lord (Volkmar has been overperforming for a while now, and not surprisingly is another lord that has magic resist ala Morathi and the Fay). And in a recent tournament you were involved in on Rubber Duck of War's channel, the polar opposite build was brought by Empire with full mobility + kite. So saying Empire play is all 20stack play currently seems like a fairly big exaggeration.

    I think it seems fairly safe to say that unit diversity this patch is extremely high on average (even if there are still overperformers which is somewhat inevitable considering the number of units in this game). More units than ever are viable picks, even though the standard laws of economics still impact how builds are structured (as price decreases, quantity demanded increases AKA cheap gets picked more than expensive). But Elites of all types are viable and seen picks, it is only with newly introduced measures of build diversity based around number of unit cards in a build that build diversity can be perceived as poor.

    It bears repeating that using unit card count as a measure of build diversity is a very poor metric and I'm sure that even the people supporting it don't actually want to push it to its obvious conclusion. Because if it is an important measure of build diversity to have builds with say 8-12 unit cards, then it seems fair to say that build diversity would be similarly expanded if the unit card cap were increased to 30 or even 40 units per match. As that would allow for an even greater diversity of unit card counts in builds. And what are the implications of this being an important metric of build diversity for a future with reinforcements (i.e. the number of unit cards on the field increasing even further?).

    The major issue facing this game in terms of build diversity etc will be resolved by adding complexity in the form of Domination mode. Where we are at in terms of the viability of unit picks is a very good spot from what we can reasonably expect given the state of overall battle conditions in game 2.

    In many ways it is best at this point to look at game1/game 2 as an extended beta testing environment to get the interactions between units and balance between factions reasonably correct. Game 3 is where we will actually all start playing Total War Warhammer in its full glory with gameplay in-game to match the highly enjoyable experiences of creating builds and unit synergies at the pickscreen.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    setting aside the discussion of how glorious game 3 and its modes will be or how there's any reason to consider wh2 to be a beta experience when i paid real money for a real game, I think that was a very nice articulation of the wide variety of factors that have influenced current meta builds and tactics. It's a far more complex picture than people want to admit when espousing simplistic theories. I would add to your examples things like halberdiers suddenly being way cheaper and viable, among other minor unit buffs in various factions that have all mattered.

    I would argue that elite cav is more niche than it was though, which is related to the charge interactions. But as you've explained well that's just one of many factors at play here.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,044
    eumaies said:

    setting aside the discussion of how glorious game 3 and its modes will be or how there's any reason to consider wh2 to be a beta experience when i paid real money for a real game, I think that was a very nice articulation of the wide variety of factors that have influenced current meta builds and tactics. It's a far more complex picture than people want to admit when espousing simplistic theories. I would add to your examples things like halberdiers suddenly being way cheaper and viable, among other minor unit buffs in various factions that have all mattered.

    I would argue that elite cav is more niche than it was though, which is related to the charge interactions. But as you've explained well that's just one of many factors at play here.

    Haha true, that comment was more just being a bit cheeky and an attempt to reframe how we are approaching balance discussions when we will have game 3 arriving shortly. And I will admit that it is easy for domination mode to be the glorious culmination of my gameplay hopes and dreams when currently it is a wild extrapolation based on some ambiguous comments from Duck, my own views on how to improve the game, and an overactive imagination.

    But yea, the overall point is that a lot of factors in the current meta are being pinned entirely onto the cavalry/infantry/chariot interactions when there is a lot going on currently. I think Elite cav/chariots is basically now playing similarly to elite infantry, you can bring a few and they need support and a plan to work well but they can still perform excellently and are the centrepiece units around which builds operate. The reason they are more niche is more a product of the overall gameplay environment and I expect domination mode will help them a lot by giving them room to really take advantage of their unique combination of speed + expensive statlines that aren't hugely well-suited to the current game mode.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder

    #TWW3=No.1MultiplayerRTS2022
  • |Sith|Dacder|Sith|Dacder Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8



    For instance in the builds you gave, you highlighted that feral manticores are near ubiquitous picks for the factions that can bring them. And I agree with this, but blaming this on the current infantry/cavalry/chariot balance doesn't make any sense. How have flying cheap SEMs been altered at all by the relative damage trade of infantry/cavalry/chariots? Clearly they haven't been so we can't blame the infantry balance as the cause of their prominence in the meta.

    Of the builds you list, I notice that SEM/SE spam is a common thread:

    - BM Hero Squad
    - Fay Hero Squad
    - Noctilus Hero Squad
    - Morathi Manticore Squad
    - Chaos LL Manticore Squad
    - Ghorst Varghulf Squad (I would say Wight Kings fit in here too).

    This is more of an ongoing issue with SEMs/SEs and we already know that CA is introducing wounds in game 3 almost certainly because of the consistent overperformance of SEMs/SEs. It also seems likely that Feral Manticores are undercosted, but that is a more traditional balancing concern rather than telling us anything of import about infantry/cavalry/chariot interactions.

    And then on top of that looking at the Fay/Morathi, both have magic resist which is going to be nerfed in game 3, and Morathi was widely considered overpowered BEFORE the AOE bug made her Soul Stealers even mightier. These all seem like traditional balancing issues (like Grom being too strong or Throt or Ariel etc) rather than telling us much about the state of build diversity or why such a wide selection of unit's are now easily fit into builds compared to past patches.

    Then if we look at something like Wood Elves, Glade Guard wide builds started almost immediately after the release of the T&T patch which precedes the infantry/cavalry/chariot interactions of the current patch. So once again this seems like a more standard balancing issue where Glade Guard are undercosted rather than telling us anything about infantry interactions.

    The skirmish spam from Chaos/Norsca has also been onoging for a while now. This is more to do with how kiting is very strong vs these factions and skirmish cav are by far the best tool these factions possess to counter this strategy. Slow melee factions currently face a big problem where because opponents don't need to hold any ground due to game design (no capture points) there is no reason to take melee engagements against them. Unlike Beastmen or Greenskins, Chaos/Norsca don't really possess the mix of utiltiy/speed that BM/GS use to prevent being kited, so they have to lean exceptionally hard into the few tools they have available. Norsca definitely needs outright and quite significant buffs in general, whereas Chaos will be able to invest less in their skirmish cav once capture points allow them to pressure opponents to engage in melee more easily.

    In terms of the builds that you listed as near ubiquitous, I see little evidence to suggest that is true when I look through the builds brought to different tournies and my own experiences on QB or watching others stream (for instance the build diversity brought by and against Lotus on his streams is very high currently). I would say even the matches you have been involved in don't appear to follow that pattern. This isn't to say those types of builds aren't brought and don't do well, but if we take something like the Empire 20 stack, I would be curious how common it would be to see this style of play without Volkmar as the lord (Volkmar has been overperforming for a while now, and not surprisingly is another lord that has magic resist ala Morathi and the Fay). And in a recent tournament you were involved in on Rubber Duck of War's channel, the polar opposite build was brought by Empire with full mobility + kite. So saying Empire play is all 20stack play currently seems like a fairly big exaggeration.

    I think it seems fairly safe to say that unit diversity this patch is extremely high on average (even if there are still overperformers which is somewhat inevitable considering the number of units in this game). More units than ever are viable picks, even though the standard laws of economics still impact how builds are structured (as price decreases, quantity demanded increases AKA cheap gets picked more than expensive). But Elites of all types are viable and seen picks, it is only with newly introduced measures of build diversity based around number of unit cards in a build that build diversity can be perceived as poor.

    It bears repeating that using unit card count as a measure of build diversity is a very poor metric and I'm sure that even the people supporting it don't actually want to push it to its obvious conclusion. Because if it is an important measure of build diversity to have builds with say 8-12 unit cards, then it seems fair to say that build diversity would be similarly expanded if the unit card cap were increased to 30 or even 40 units per match. As that would allow for an even greater diversity of unit card counts in builds. And what are the implications of this being an important metric of build diversity for a future with reinforcements (i.e. the number of unit cards on the field increasing even further?).

    The major issue facing this game in terms of build diversity etc will be resolved by adding complexity in the form of Domination mode. Where we are at in terms of the viability of unit picks is a very good spot from what we can reasonably expect given the state of overall battle conditions in game 2.

    In many ways it is best at this point to look at game1/game 2 as an extended beta testing environment to get the interactions between units and balance between factions reasonably correct. Game 3 is where we will actually all start playing Total War Warhammer in its full glory with gameplay in-game to match the highly enjoyable experiences of creating builds and unit synergies at the pickscreen.

    Okay so let's break this down piece by piece because it's almost 100% wrong or missing the point lol.

    So first off, I wasn't saying every single common pick is because of the inf bug. Manticores for example are just too strong for their price (though a lack of mass to prevent gooning could maybe be argued, I'd consider that a reach.) SEM/SE spam has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. That is an entirely separate issue which is, as you said, being addressed in game 3.

    For Wood Elves, glade guard builds started kind of being a thing in certain matchups thanks to Drycha being strong, but they were a relative rarity and used only in matchups like GS, TK, or LZM where cheap cav and infantry were sufficient to protect them. Versus factions like empire, high elves, and bret they weren't strong at all but are now thanks to the inf bug. This is the kind of thing I mean. before glade guard were situational, now they can be spammed brainlessly.

    Chaos and norsca spam skirmish cav because they mostly have to, but that wasn't the point. The point is the extreme masses of great weapons they're currently spamming, sometimes up to 10 great weapon units in a single build, usually with very little mass backing it up.

    Lotus' QB armies aren't designed to be competitive. They're designed to be fun for lotus to use. As far as that full mobility Empire build was concerned, do you by chance happen to recall the result of that game? It was smashed. It pretty much stood zero chance to win the game from the very start. Not exactly helping your case. Also, regarding my game, saying "yeah you spammed inf but would it work without volkmar" isn't really an interesting point because, well, volkmar does exist lol. If he didn't exist, well, he wouldn't exist I guess. Then it'd be a different game.

    You say "I think it seems fairly safe to say that unit diversity this patch is extremely high on average" when, well, it just isn't lol. You didn't make that point at all even in your above statements. I also have no idea what the large armies thing has to do with any of this. A 12 unit build is fundamentally different from a 20 unit build. Case closed.

    Domination mode is frankly completely irrelevant to the state of WH2.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,356
    On a few of those points, Dacder, I don't think there was any time since drycha launched that glade guard spam plus drycha wasn't a highly highly effective strategy vs almost any faction in the game. Maybe it took a little more work to defend from cav but i was doing that from day 1 of the WE DLC with great success vs the likes of brettonia and even empire on entladder.

    i think you're right chaos is spamming great weapons more, and may have been especially affected by the charge dynamic change since they have the best and highest HP great weapons in the game. I don't feel other factions have been as affected, though of course I agree it's a factor on the margins in every game.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,683
    edited August 31
    My diversity on stream is because im currently trolling in QB by picking as many headless chicken infantry such as sowrdmastrs and head charging into cav, even tot he point i pick shadews GW so i can head charge them into chaos cav and come out on top, its quite sad actually the current state and how effective some stupid set ups are, look at my recent one vs chaos as DE, i picked 3 shades, they spend way more time charging cav than shooting them lol

    Got to say greatly dont enjoy the armies im picking now in QB becuase im forced into 20 stack to be effective, if you have a look what im doing is exactly as Dacder wrote for his faction by faction example, the only difference is with WE's because i just refuse to go the idiotic 20 stack of auto win with minimal skill, the fact even i changed form eternal guard to dryads frontline vs factions with cav spekas for itself, why brace with my spears when i can counter charge with my cheapest infantry and come out on top, the fact dryads only really fear blazing sun knights and no other cav is just a sad state at the moment, before in the balanced patch they feared all cav frontal charge with exception of wilrd riders inmirror and light cav.

    I wrote this on Dahvs Vod but i though id copy and paste it here as it is somewhat relevant.

    "The state of light cav is fairly ok since they never wanted to head on charge anyway even if it says "shock cav" on their tooltip, its the cav that pay 1000g+ that now fears charging into unbraced non spear infantry front on (they should fear charging into braced spears/halberds or elite GW infantry such as black orcs) that are the issue.

    It pushes expensive cav into support role as opposed to shock role, cav used as support still works fine but shock cav being forced into support is not the same as using shock cav as support by choice, because shock cav is forced to support the opponent has no fear picking non spear infantry as front line followed up by lots ranged, and because the cav will be only trying to flank now opponents usually tend to pick some cav on their own just to intercept the flanks, which leads to armies being composed mainly of exactly same elements just copy and pasted faction by faction unless some of the tools just dont exist for that faction.

    Once shock cav does not need to fear chaff head on it will mean that players now need to invest in some spears as front line and if they want to beat opponents non cav elements also some GW infantry, thus leaving less gold to invest on missiles or risk being broken thru the front.

    While i have NO issue with light cav/missile chariots being made to have such role and used in this way, i DO have massive issue when it is the case for 80 charge bonus cav that costs 1000g+ or in some cases even 1500g+ that is now FORCED to be a flanking unit because opponents NON braced NON anti large 500g infantry will badly out trade me with their 15 charge bonus if we have a mutual charge."


    The only argument i can see to current state that i dont agree with but at lest i can understand is:

    "I like the game like that even if it means its unbalanced for shock cav/ heavy non pig chariots" anyone trying to sell it differently is just being sneaky in my view.

    I personally prefer that the game be more true to how unit interactions were in warhammer and in addition how it was post bracing fixes but before stag changes, to me that was the sweet spot, ofcourse some units still could of used a nerf in that patch from the mentioned category (white lions chariots/LZM cold ones) but it was likely less than 5 or so total.
    Post edited by Lotus_Moon on
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,371

    Okay Sugar, let's follow your logic then (which is flawed in this case BTW because chariots were ALWAYS better at pushing through infantry and wrecking havoc in backlines).

    Why should great weapon infantry be better than halberds against literally every single unit type? The problem here clearly isn't cavalry or chariots. The problem is absolutely with great weapon infantry.

    ...what gave you the idea that they are? GW infantry does well on the charge but halberd do about as well vs large - and in sustained combat they do a lot better - as their stats suggest they will.
    low tier GW will lose to spears, gold for gold, high tier GW are among the most exposed units in the game to ranged and charges.
    having a strange mechanic that sometimes cost infantry their CB made GW decidedly worse than halberd, having infantry now function as their stats say they will make them balanced vs halberd/spear etc

    chariots were not very good at punching through infantry in 1.10 and would be stopped entirely, even defeated by light cav. thats why their use dwindled greatly. they came at a huge risk whereas cavalry was advantage with the only downside being you needed to utilize the charge bonus.
    Cavalry should not beat infantry in head to head, with nothing else going on, speed has a premium. Chariots on the other hand already needed to do better vs infantry, and now even more, and fixing those would give an even more effective counter to chaff - to the extent such a fix is needed.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,371
    i havent noticed an increased use of infantry/chaff, it was already common before. i have noticed an increased use of GW infantry because they are no longer nerfed, swordmasters fx used to be far too niche.
    GW infantry generally struggles vs ranged, and arent particularly effective vs low armored melee.
Sign In or Register to comment.