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?

1234689

Comments

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    The current meta did exist already before, but it did become significantly stronger because these builds now need less support than before. They are very self-sufficient vs what used to be more of a counter to them. The only remaining threat to these units now are ranged units and guess what people here are complaining about.... ranged units op.... :unamused:

    As for chariots, yep they were weak already after the infantry cohesion changes in T&T. For chariots the infantry bug more adds insult to injury rather than being the sole reason for chariots being bad. All chariots needed was a pretty small buff to their mass, and WL chariots needed less missile resist, then we'd have chariots in a balanced spot at that time. As it is after rakarth, chariots are countered by infantry which is pretty hilariously stupid.

    And again, cavalry and chariots are not directly comparable. Chariots being even worse off is not an argument for not fixing the bad interactions with cavalry. They have always had different roles and are not in direct competition with each other as anti-infantry/disruption tools. Cavalry were neither strong disruptors (bar bret wedge at one point), nor your first choice to kill infantry, even when they were at their peak performance before T&T (Dec 2020). Even back then you'd suffer more attrition with cav, and they were not particularly efficient as the main way to kill infantry over the course of the entire battle. They were however a win con over infantry in the late game if both sides were tattered, and by that I mean tattered enough and in the absence of mass/single entities. It was not a hard counter by any means, just favoured in the late game (and that is assuming tournament rules were you're not allowed to go sit in a forest late game).

    A large part of why you'd pick cavalry was to add mass, mobility and anti-cav, and in matchups where you were very unlikely to go up against opponent cav (like vs dwarfs or coast) you'd rather pick other units even when cav were at their peak. Vs empire, who like dwf and vp also have strong cannons and powder, you'd pick cav every time to help control the mobility game.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076



    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.

    Ah I see, judging all units on a consistent standard focused on pick rates/kills/damage value is "sneaky" now.

    That is good to know, so does that mean if expensive infantry or ranged units regularly makes their value back in-game (with QB stats to back it up) it is still fair game to just ask for free buffs with no compensatory nerfs? After all, some of those units also can't go yoloing blindly into a frontlines and require skill to use too.

    Hmm some buffs for Black Orcs would be a good start, sure they make their value back often but that doesn't matter anymore apparently. I think some buffs for Poison Wind Mortars would be quite nice too, maybe throw in some buffs for Savage Orc Big Uns as a sweetener. Also Shaggoths don't really feel mighty anymore and come to think of it Terradons rock drops don't really feel strong enough I think maybe give them a 2nd one. After all I might miss the first rock drop, can't have units require skill to use after all.

    I think this could be a good overall thing for balancing. Sure, using those silly metrics like pickrates/kills/damage value has been the widely accepted standard all through the game 2 lifecycle for balancing and has led to considerably better overall faction/unit/gameplay balance after years of iteration. But you can't take full mobility 8 unit card cheese builds anymore, so clearly this style of balancing has run its course.

    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076
    edited August 2021
    What is great about this new standard for balancing units that ignores pick rates/kills/damage value is that now campaign players can have a proper say in balancing as well. Every couple months when one turns up here saying "Greatswords need buffs because they are my favourite unit" be easy to just throw a few stats at them with no issues. Don't even need to bother checking the metrics for performance that have done such a great job at improving game balance so far. Be a great thing to not have to worry about such "sneaky" standards for balancing units.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    edited August 2021



    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.

    Ah I see, judging all units on a consistent standard focused on pick rates/kills/damage value is "sneaky" now.

    That is good to know, so does that mean if expensive infantry or ranged units regularly makes their value back in-game (with QB stats to back it up) it is still fair game to just ask for free buffs with no compensatory nerfs? After all, some of those units also can't go yoloing blindly into a frontlines and require skill to use too.

    Hmm some buffs for Black Orcs would be a good start, sure they make their value back often but that doesn't matter anymore apparently. I think some buffs for Poison Wind Mortars would be quite nice too, maybe throw in some buffs for Savage Orc Big Uns as a sweetener. Also Shaggoths don't really feel mighty anymore and come to think of it Terradons rock drops don't really feel strong enough I think maybe give them a 2nd one. After all I might miss the first rock drop, can't have units require skill to use after all.

    I think this could be a good overall thing for balancing. Sure, using those silly metrics like pickrates/kills/damage value has been the widely accepted standard all through the game 2 lifecycle for balancing and has led to considerably better overall faction/unit/gameplay balance after years of iteration. But you can't take full mobility 8 unit card cheese builds anymore, so clearly this style of balancing has run its course.

    Yes when CA comes out and states the current cav to infantry frontal interaction is unbalanced as opposed to before and others try to argue to "its better for the game" yes that is "sneaky" to me, if they state they like it better coz they liek to play ti that way sure i can accept that while i think its stupid but whatever, but them tyring to make topics "ohh the diversity is sooo good" lmao yeah thats sneaky to me.

    Go on show me pick rates that you claim are so balanced now, i want to see infantry/cav/misisle/monster/Monster infantry pick rates this patch and the pre stag fix and pre rakath all to compare in competitive environment, (so to make it simply analyse 5 competitive touraments that were streamed with somekind of price from each of those patches) For your argument to make sense the outcome will need to be that the spear is more balanced than in the prefvious patches, and sure as heck its not looking like that to me. Its the most unbalanced spears i have seen OTHER than when SEM were dominting the picks...you seem to know the pick rates so should not take you to long to dig this up.


    I know you like this 20 stack meta that is fine you can like what you like but why are you trying to sell this horrid state to others? i dont get it, you are going way out of your way to somehow convince everyone this state is good when pepole are simply quiting the game until its adressed because of current state. (doesn't help your case that 3 questionable forum characters support your argument either while vast majority seem to disagree with you)

    I think you really need to look at the data Disposable provided to see how OFF you are on what did happen and what you think did happen in that interaction pre stag fix, GW still traded well into cav front on for most part especially GW ones with higher cost, it was worth to brace with charge defense vs large as opposed to just charging now. Defend all the garbage all you want but stop trying to sell it as fun and balanced.

    20 stacks will still be viable after this gets fixed they will just require better though out armies, and not dominate and a must like they are now.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    The current meta did exist already before, but it did become significantly stronger because these builds now need less support than before. They are very self-sufficient vs what used to be more of a counter to them. The only remaining threat to these units now are ranged units and guess what people here are complaining about.... ranged units op....


    ^ This 100%

    Its why other styles also dropped of now and this one became more dominant, lucky majority of players especially on top level are seeing through those crusades and are sticking up for it.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    The current meta did exist already before, but it did become significantly stronger because these builds now need less support than before. They are very self-sufficient vs what used to be more of a counter to them. The only remaining threat to these units now are ranged units and guess what people here are complaining about.... ranged units op....


    ^ This 100%

    Its why other styles also dropped of now and this one became more dominant, lucky majority of players especially on top level are seeing through those crusades and are sticking up for it.
    Just like "top level players" stuck to the infinite knockdown meta, eh? That's not a hill to die on, that's a mound to be buried in.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975

    The current meta did exist already before, but it did become significantly stronger because these builds now need less support than before. They are very self-sufficient vs what used to be more of a counter to them. The only remaining threat to these units now are ranged units and guess what people here are complaining about.... ranged units op....


    ^ This 100%

    Its why other styles also dropped of now and this one became more dominant, lucky majority of players especially on top level are seeing through those crusades and are sticking up for it.
    Just like "top level players" stuck to the infinite knockdown meta, eh? That's not a hill to die on, that's a mound to be buried in.
    How cute, you believe in the "infinite knockdowns" meme.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405

    The current meta did exist already before, but it did become significantly stronger because these builds now need less support than before. They are very self-sufficient vs what used to be more of a counter to them. The only remaining threat to these units now are ranged units and guess what people here are complaining about.... ranged units op....


    ^ This 100%

    Its why other styles also dropped of now and this one became more dominant, lucky majority of players especially on top level are seeing through those crusades and are sticking up for it.
    Just like "top level players" stuck to the infinite knockdown meta, eh? That's not a hill to die on, that's a mound to be buried in.
    You’re both right and there’s no need to overly defend the old or the new. Let’s just hope someone is still working on the game at all to make some dent in all the bugs.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    eumaies said:

    The current meta did exist already before, but it did become significantly stronger because these builds now need less support than before. They are very self-sufficient vs what used to be more of a counter to them. The only remaining threat to these units now are ranged units and guess what people here are complaining about.... ranged units op....


    ^ This 100%

    Its why other styles also dropped of now and this one became more dominant, lucky majority of players especially on top level are seeing through those crusades and are sticking up for it.
    Just like "top level players" stuck to the infinite knockdown meta, eh? That's not a hill to die on, that's a mound to be buried in.
    You’re both right and there’s no need to overly defend the old or the new. Let’s just hope someone is still working on the game at all to make some dent in all the bugs.
    Hmm, back in the days of the Infinite Knockdown meta, its apologists insulted anyone not liking it and suggesting changes as just being too bad and unskilled to make it work. As one can see now, if the game isn't balanced to their liking, they'll not just "suck up" and "git gud" at it either but demand it to be changed instead.

    Principles and standards are for other people.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076
    edited August 2021



    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.

    Ah I see, judging all units on a consistent standard focused on pick rates/kills/damage value is "sneaky" now.

    That is good to know, so does that mean if expensive infantry or ranged units regularly makes their value back in-game (with QB stats to back it up) it is still fair game to just ask for free buffs with no compensatory nerfs? After all, some of those units also can't go yoloing blindly into a frontlines and require skill to use too.

    Hmm some buffs for Black Orcs would be a good start, sure they make their value back often but that doesn't matter anymore apparently. I think some buffs for Poison Wind Mortars would be quite nice too, maybe throw in some buffs for Savage Orc Big Uns as a sweetener. Also Shaggoths don't really feel mighty anymore and come to think of it Terradons rock drops don't really feel strong enough I think maybe give them a 2nd one. After all I might miss the first rock drop, can't have units require skill to use after all.

    I think this could be a good overall thing for balancing. Sure, using those silly metrics like pickrates/kills/damage value has been the widely accepted standard all through the game 2 lifecycle for balancing and has led to considerably better overall faction/unit/gameplay balance after years of iteration. But you can't take full mobility 8 unit card cheese builds anymore, so clearly this style of balancing has run its course.

    Yes when CA comes out and states the current cav to infantry frontal interaction is unbalanced as opposed to before and others try to argue to "its better for the game" yes that is "sneaky" to me, if they state they like it better coz they liek to play ti that way sure i can accept that while i think its stupid but whatever, but them tyring to make topics "ohh the diversity is sooo good" lmao yeah thats sneaky to me.

    Go on show me pick rates that you claim are so balanced now, i want to see infantry/cav/misisle/monster/Monster infantry pick rates this patch and the pre stag fix and pre rakath all to compare in competitive environment, (so to make it simply analyse 5 competitive touraments that were streamed with somekind of price from each of those patches) For your argument to make sense the outcome will need to be that the spear is more balanced than in the prefvious patches, and sure as heck its not looking like that to me. Its the most unbalanced spears i have seen OTHER than when SEM were dominting the picks...you seem to know the pick rates so should not take you to long to dig this up.


    I know you like this 20 stack meta that is fine you can like what you like but why are you trying to sell this horrid state to others? i dont get it, you are going way out of your way to somehow convince everyone this state is good when pepole are simply quiting the game until its adressed because of current state. (doesn't help your case that 3 questionable forum characters support your argument either while vast majority seem to disagree with you)

    I think you really need to look at the data Disposable provided to see how OFF you are on what did happen and what you think did happen in that interaction pre stag fix, GW still traded well into cav front on for most part especially GW ones with higher cost, it was worth to brace with charge defense vs large as opposed to just charging now. Defend all the garbage all you want but stop trying to sell it as fun and balanced.

    20 stacks will still be viable after this gets fixed they will just require better though out armies, and not dominate and a must like they are now.
    The reason I make the argument here is pretty obvious, CA read this forum and the posts are persistent so more possibility they will see it. And then they can check the metrics they use to evaluate unit balance (pickrates etc)

    As for why I am making the argument, that is because it is to make sure the game ends up better balanced. If CA have said "this is an unbalanced interaction" then fine, but the reasonable question to ask following that is "are the units engaged in the interaction underperforming based on the metrics traditionally used to balance units when looked at across the whole game?". Because like I have said a few times now, this game is NOT a infantry-cavalry charge simulator.

    In economics there is a concept called "Demand" which represents the amount of something that someone will pay for at a given pricepoint. Demand is modelled through a sloping downward curve, indicating that at a lower price quantity demanded is higher, and as price increases the quantity demanded decreases.

    As an example, if a plane ticket costs $1000 you fly only once every year, @ $500 you fly every 6 months, @ $250 you fly every 3 months, @ $125 you fly every month and half etc etc. As price decreases, quantity demanded increases, as price increases quantity demanded decreases.

    Here is the wikipedia for more info + an example of the graph itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve

    The application to this game are pretty easy to see, when a unit is overpriced it is used less (quantity demanded decreases), when it is underpriced it is used more (quantity demanded increases). And the traditional measures to determine whether or not a unit is over/under/correctly priced are pickrates/kills/damage value. For instance despite insistence by some that Ancient Salamanders were a balanced unit they received a -$200 last patch. Why? I can only speculate but I would think it is because the metrics show that this unit had a very low quantity demanded at the pricepoint it was being offered. So you reduce price to increase quantity demanded so that it fits within whatever range is considered "acceptable" by CA on the design side.

    So back to the Cavalry/chariot situation, I have yet to see a good reason why a $1200 gold cavalry/chariot unit should have a higher pickrate than a $1200 ranged unit/Infantry unit/SEM. If the price is the same for both units, but the quantity demanded is higher for one unit then that indicates that either one unit is underpriced or the other is overpriced. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that factions get certain units cheaper for thematic reasons, but as the argument being made is that the whole class of units is underperforming due to an "unbalanced interaction" then that is basically saying that all of these units are overpriced. And that seems highly unlikely to me based on what I have experienced and seen this patch.

    So then the question becomes, when you actually look at the pickrate/damage value/kills of the units across the whole game (i.e. at end battle screen) and not just the counter charge interaction does the unit underperform by the standards used to evaluate the balance of all other units in the game? Because if the units that are involved in what is being called an "unbalanced interaction" are recouping their value at the same rate as is considered "acceptable" by other unit types (infantry/range/SEMs) then what is being called a "fix" to this interaction will functionally end up being a large buff to units that may already be performing at a standard that is considered completely fine for other unit types. And why should these units receive special treatment?

    You can't isolate a 10 second interaction from the overall balance of a unit and especially not a whole class of units. To give a very clear example, there is no reason why a $1200 Wild Rider should be used more than a $1200 Bladesinger if traditional metrics of unit balance (pickrates/kills/damage value) are showing that they are both returning the expected performance for a unit at that pricepoint.

    This isn't to say that I am satisfied with the performance of all mobility in this game currently, but that is because the very limited strategic aspects of this game mean you can't take advantage of the unique strengths of powerful multi-model mobile units often enough as they need to be able to perform in an environment that favours more static boxy builds or full mobility builds that both revolve around using ranged power to dictate the pace of play.

    But as what players are asking for (effectively) with an altering of the current charging interaction is a buff to these units, it seems entirely reasonable to point out to CA that they should be checking to see how these units they are buffing are performing by the metrics and standards they hold all units to when balancing the game. And if they are performing comparably to other units types in the normal ways, i.e.:

    - Are Cavalry/Chariots at pricepoint X being picked at similar rates to Infantry/Ranged/SEM at pricepoint X?
    - Are Cavalry/Chariots at pricepoint X performing comparably in terms of Kills/Damage Value to Infantry/Ranged/SEMs at pricepoint X?

    Then do they deserve what effectively will amount to free buffs? And what is the justification for doing this? If CA check their own metrics and the pickrates etc for individual units are not within the "acceptable" level based on their design philosophy, then I would have no issue at all with buffs. But I highly doubt that would mean sweeping buffs across the board to all Cavalry/Chariots worth $1000+ like you and some others appear to be suggesting. Targeted buffs to underperformers are fine of course.

    I will say I do find it confusing how against the idea of Domination Mode you are considering if done well it will be by far the biggest buff you could give to mobility in general. But as Domination Mode is coming already and I suspect will be a big shadow buff to mobility (as well as helping melee units dictate pace of play in general), I am against sweeping buffs to whole classes of units based on cherry-picked tests. Let's see a similar "patch comparison" analysis of KOTBS vs Savage Orcs for example, or Silver Helms vs Wardancers, or any other of the myriad combinations where you CAN frontally charge infantry units and trade cost-effectively. Disposable's data is fine but it ignores the big picture. The example chosen (KOTBS vs Marauder GW) has a perfect stat breakdown to show infantry overperformance and cavalry underperformance.

    P.S. I can't know other considerations CA may have around balance including campaign specific goals etc so they may want to buff $1000+ mobility for other reasons. But if they have broad balance principles that they apply to all unit balance and that these units fit within, I would be curious to know the reason for these changes if they do occur.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837


    "chariots/cav/dragons....in good spot...archers OP, infantry UP"....yeah ok lmao
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076



    "chariots/cav/dragons....in good spot...archers OP, infantry UP"....yeah ok lmao

    Would've bene nice if the new player could have reinforced with some AP
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837



    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.

    Ah I see, judging all units on a consistent standard focused on pick rates/kills/damage value is "sneaky" now.

    That is good to know, so does that mean if expensive infantry or ranged units regularly makes their value back in-game (with QB stats to back it up) it is still fair game to just ask for free buffs with no compensatory nerfs? After all, some of those units also can't go yoloing blindly into a frontlines and require skill to use too.

    Hmm some buffs for Black Orcs would be a good start, sure they make their value back often but that doesn't matter anymore apparently. I think some buffs for Poison Wind Mortars would be quite nice too, maybe throw in some buffs for Savage Orc Big Uns as a sweetener. Also Shaggoths don't really feel mighty anymore and come to think of it Terradons rock drops don't really feel strong enough I think maybe give them a 2nd one. After all I might miss the first rock drop, can't have units require skill to use after all.

    I think this could be a good overall thing for balancing. Sure, using those silly metrics like pickrates/kills/damage value has been the widely accepted standard all through the game 2 lifecycle for balancing and has led to considerably better overall faction/unit/gameplay balance after years of iteration. But you can't take full mobility 8 unit card cheese builds anymore, so clearly this style of balancing has run its course.

    Yes when CA comes out and states the current cav to infantry frontal interaction is unbalanced as opposed to before and others try to argue to "its better for the game" yes that is "sneaky" to me, if they state they like it better coz they liek to play ti that way sure i can accept that while i think its stupid but whatever, but them tyring to make topics "ohh the diversity is sooo good" lmao yeah thats sneaky to me.

    Go on show me pick rates that you claim are so balanced now, i want to see infantry/cav/misisle/monster/Monster infantry pick rates this patch and the pre stag fix and pre rakath all to compare in competitive environment, (so to make it simply analyse 5 competitive touraments that were streamed with somekind of price from each of those patches) For your argument to make sense the outcome will need to be that the spear is more balanced than in the prefvious patches, and sure as heck its not looking like that to me. Its the most unbalanced spears i have seen OTHER than when SEM were dominting the picks...you seem to know the pick rates so should not take you to long to dig this up.


    I know you like this 20 stack meta that is fine you can like what you like but why are you trying to sell this horrid state to others? i dont get it, you are going way out of your way to somehow convince everyone this state is good when pepole are simply quiting the game until its adressed because of current state. (doesn't help your case that 3 questionable forum characters support your argument either while vast majority seem to disagree with you)

    I think you really need to look at the data Disposable provided to see how OFF you are on what did happen and what you think did happen in that interaction pre stag fix, GW still traded well into cav front on for most part especially GW ones with higher cost, it was worth to brace with charge defense vs large as opposed to just charging now. Defend all the garbage all you want but stop trying to sell it as fun and balanced.

    20 stacks will still be viable after this gets fixed they will just require better though out armies, and not dominate and a must like they are now.
    The reason I make the argument here is pretty obvious, CA read this forum and the posts are persistent so more possibility they will see it. And then they can check the metrics they use to evaluate unit balance (pickrates etc)

    As for why I am making the argument, that is because it is to make sure the game ends up better balanced. If CA have said "this is an unbalanced interaction" then fine, but the reasonable question to ask following that is "are the units engaged in the interaction underperforming based on the metrics traditionally used to balance units when looked at across the whole game?". Because like I have said a few times now, this game is NOT a infantry-cavalry charge simulator.

    In economics there is a concept called "Demand" which represents the amount of something that someone will pay for at a given pricepoint. Demand is modelled through a sloping downward curve, indicating that at a lower price quantity demanded is higher, and as price increases the quantity demanded decreases.

    As an example, if a plane ticket costs $1000 you fly only once every year, @ $500 you fly every 6 months, @ $250 you fly every 3 months, @ $125 you fly every month and half etc etc. As price decreases, quantity demanded increases, as price increases quantity demanded decreases.

    Here is the wikipedia for more info + an example of the graph itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve

    The application to this game are pretty easy to see, when a unit is overpriced it is used less (quantity demanded decreases), when it is underpriced it is used more (quantity demanded increases). And the traditional measures to determine whether or not a unit is over/under/correctly priced are pickrates/kills/damage value. For instance despite insistence by some that Ancient Salamanders were a balanced unit they received a -$200 last patch. Why? I can only speculate but I would think it is because the metrics show that this unit had a very low quantity demanded at the pricepoint it was being offered. So you reduce price to increase quantity demanded so that it fits within whatever range is considered "acceptable" by CA on the design side.

    So back to the Cavalry/chariot situation, I have yet to see a good reason why a $1200 gold cavalry/chariot unit should have a higher pickrate than a $1200 ranged unit/Infantry unit/SEM. If the price is the same for both units, but the quantity demanded is higher for one unit then that indicates that either one unit is underpriced or the other is overpriced. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that factions get certain units cheaper for thematic reasons, but as the argument being made is that the whole class of units is underperforming due to an "unbalanced interaction" then that is basically saying that all of these units are overpriced. And that seems highly unlikely to me based on what I have experienced and seen this patch.

    So then the question becomes, when you actually look at the pickrate/damage value/kills of the units across the whole game (i.e. at end battle screen) and not just the counter charge interaction does the unit underperform by the standards used to evaluate the balance of all other units in the game? Because if the units that are involved in what is being called an "unbalanced interaction" are recouping their value at the same rate as is considered "acceptable" by other unit types (infantry/range/SEMs) then what is being called a "fix" to this interaction will functionally end up being a large buff to units that may already be performing at a standard that is considered completely fine for other unit types. And why should these units receive special treatment?

    You can't isolate a 10 second interaction from the overall balance of a unit and especially not a whole class of units. To give a very clear example, there is no reason why a $1200 Wild Rider should be used more than a $1200 Bladesinger if traditional metrics of unit balance (pickrates/kills/damage value) are showing that they are both returning the expected performance for a unit at that pricepoint.

    This isn't to say that I am satisfied with the performance of all mobility in this game currently, but that is because the very limited strategic aspects of this game mean you can't take advantage of the unique strengths of powerful multi-model mobile units often enough as they need to be able to perform in an environment that favours more static boxy builds or full mobility builds that both revolve around using ranged power to dictate the pace of play.

    But as what players are asking for (effectively) with an altering of the current charging interaction is a buff to these units, it seems entirely reasonable to point out to CA that they should be checking to see how these units they are buffing are performing by the metrics and standards they hold all units to when balancing the game. And if they are performing comparably to other units types in the normal ways, i.e.:

    - Are Cavalry/Chariots at pricepoint X being picked at similar rates to Infantry/Ranged/SEM at pricepoint X?
    - Are Cavalry/Chariots at pricepoint X performing comparably in terms of Kills/Damage Value to Infantry/Ranged/SEMs at pricepoint X?

    Then do they deserve what effectively will amount to free buffs? And what is the justification for doing this? If CA check their own metrics and the pickrates etc for individual units are not within the "acceptable" level based on their design philosophy, then I would have no issue at all with buffs. But I highly doubt that would mean sweeping buffs across the board to all Cavalry/Chariots worth $1000+ like you and some others appear to be suggesting. Targeted buffs to underperformers are fine of course.

    I will say I do find it confusing how against the idea of Domination Mode you are considering if done well it will be by far the biggest buff you could give to mobility in general. But as Domination Mode is coming already and I suspect will be a big shadow buff to mobility (as well as helping melee units dictate pace of play in general), I am against sweeping buffs to whole classes of units based on cherry-picked tests. Let's see a similar "patch comparison" analysis of KOTBS vs Savage Orcs for example, or Silver Helms vs Wardancers, or any other of the myriad combinations where you CAN frontally charge infantry units and trade cost-effectively. Disposable's data is fine but it ignores the big picture. The example chosen (KOTBS vs Marauder GW) has a perfect stat breakdown to show infantry overperformance and cavalry underperformance.

    P.S. I can't know other considerations CA may have around balance including campaign specific goals etc so they may want to buff $1000+ mobility for other reasons. But if they have broad balance principles that they apply to all unit balance and that these units fit within, I would be curious to know the reason for these changes if they do occur.
    SO much wrong with that posts where to start....

    Why should 1200+g cav have higher pick rate than elite infantry etc well because 1000 to 1400g is the mid range for cav with some factions not having other options and the ones who do have other options dont really seem to agree with your observation, i do think grail knights/guardians get picked less than pretty much any high range infantry, other reason is that simply no other options, your comparing the cost to eachother without comparing the cost of the unit class, another reason is largely due to the fact chaff infantry is perfroming too well now so no need for elites, likewise same is true for most archers simply because in the past if you took 6 archers it was hard to protect now it is not because you simply spam chaff and it uptrades.

    1200g for wild rider is mid range of that catagory, 1200 for a bladesinger is top range of that catagory, your logic is greatly flowed by ignoring what the categories offer. I mean what kind of argument are you presenting...why is there no 100g cav? if cav costed same as infantry in low, mid, high cost breakdown you would see same pick rates as you see with infantry now.

    And i seen elite cav picked a lot less than elite infantry those days but int he past quite even breakdown.

    I need to say i think the argument you are making is making the balance much worse and you're trying to sell that to other but whatever you had your vision like that for a long time, i mean there are other titles who already do what you stated and you can see they are near dead now, if argument is that warhammer is more popular than yeah it is because people came expecting re-create table top feel and you're tryign get rid of it also.

    Its really weird that you suddely fully support pick rate as an option to keep broken interractin BUT when mosnters were dominating infantry and yet infatry pick rate was very high you were a strong argue of fixing the broken intteraction (and dont get me wrong i agree on fixing it and the fix was good) but its just strange that you argue to make SEM weaker vs ifnantry late game while "pick" rate seen infantry picked highly and monsters so so as done by my examples of tournament analysis in those threads.


    Also nooone is asking for cav buffs you need to realize that, noone asked cahriot or cav buffs, infantry is the issue, cav is doing fair dmg its the infantry side that is overperfroming, you need to realise everyone wants to keep cav like they are now but fix infantry to stop overperfroming.

    You're greatly confusing my hate for domination mode with what i think about capture points, i have repeated this at least 10x now. I support capture points, i hate the idea of reinforcemnts which have been said to be ited to domination mode.

    Reinforcements = Garbage
    Capture Points = GOOD


    I really dont get you supporting 500g chaff outrading chariots on a charge....or halberds doing better charing than perfect bracing...just makes discussing balance with anyone who thinks this is good for the game kinda pointless to me.

    Watch the link above...chariots/dragons/cav/archers doing loosing to afk chaos lmao...amazing state of balance....defend it more.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076
    @Lotus_Moon whether or not a unit is the the top or bottom of a category is irrelevant, they are both priced in the same units (gold) and that what is used to compare them.

    The question is how much value you can expect to get from your gold investment e.g. Can you get $1200 from a wild rider, can you get $1200 from a bladesinger.

    As I mentioned, I accept that mobility lacks in relative utility in the same way that you could have a spicy curry priced at $5 and an icecream priced at $5 but even though they are the same price you are going to have a lot greater quantity demanded (probably) for the ice-cream on a hot day at the beach than the curry. It isn't a perfect analogy, but shows the context of a purchase matters, Domination will change the game context in a way that incentives more use of cavalry/chariots even if prices and relative balance remains the same.

    Which is what makes it important to not overbuff units that will receive shadow buffs in Domination anyway, especially if based on traditional balance metrics they are performing appropriately (I believe they probably are but if they aren't, that changes the analysis and could be used to justify sweeping buffs)
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837



    "chariots/cav/dragons....in good spot...archers OP, infantry UP"....yeah ok lmao

    Would've bene nice if the new player could have reinforced with some AP
    You mean with AP infantry coz cav/chariots/dragons cannot do their job? Look at cav/chariot charging into rear of infantry and spawn...low armoured ones at that.

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076
    edited August 2021
    It is worth mentioning here I am not against tweaks to the interaction categorically, just not to the extent it revive builds based around 8 unit cards and full mobility. Unit card count is a poor measure of build diversity. That got somewhat lost in the discussion but thought it worth reemphasising.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837

    @Lotus_Moon whether or not a unit is the the top or bottom of a category is irrelevant, they are both priced in the same units (gold) and that what is used to compare them.

    The question is how much value you can expect to get from your gold investment e.g. Can you get $1200 from a wild rider, can you get $1200 from a bladesinger.

    As I mentioned, I accept that mobility lacks in relative utility in the same way that you could have a spicy curry priced at $5 and an icecream priced at $5 but even though they are the same price you are going to have a lot greater quantity demanded (probably) for the ice-cream on a hot day at the beach than the curry. It isn't a perfect analogy, but shows the context of a purchase matters, Domination will change the game context in a way that incentives more use of cavalry/chariots even if prices and relative balance remains the same.

    Which is what makes it important to not overbuff units that will receive shadow buffs in Domination anyway, especially if based on traditional balance metrics they are performing appropriately (I believe they probably are but if they aren't, that changes the analysis and could be used to justify sweeping buffs)

    Its highly relevant, they pay for different things, i mean i dont see you pointing out that you see much less 500g cav comapred to 300g-500g infantry, why is that? likewise 800g cav compared to 600g - 900g infantry? why is that? doesnt suit the argument?

    if WE option of heavy cav is 1200g wild riders....than they got no option but to pick wild riders or no cav how do you not see that?

    If you want to compare breakdown of cav pick rates from "chaff", "mid" to "elite" look at Brets or High elves or empire.

    Brets never pick grails/gourians/yomen

    HE pick rate along all 3 is quite similar, tho this patch id say silver helm see more play than dragon princes as those cannot perform their role anymore

    Empire seems quite an even spread also, likely blazing suns dominating but this one can be explained that they just very good due to fire attacks vs regen in a lot of match-ups.

    And once again cav is not the issue its infantry that is the issue, chaff especially upgrading like crazy 15CB vs 80 just lol.

    As for value gained by each unit, it just depends on opponents army and what happens in the game, i see no reason why same cost infantry cannot get same or more value as units from other roles, i have gotten 2000g on wild riders and i have gotten 0, i gotten 3000g on Phoenix guard and i have gotten 0.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001



    Its highly relevant, they pay for different things, i mean i dont see you pointing out that you see much less 500g cav comapred to 300g-500g infantry, why is that? likewise 800g cav compared to 600g - 900g infantry? why is that? doesnt suit the argument?

    if WE option of heavy cav is 1200g wild riders....than they got no option but to pick wild riders or no cav how do you not see that?

    If you want to compare breakdown of cav pick rates from "chaff", "mid" to "elite" look at Brets or High elves or empire.

    Brets never pick grails/gourians/yomen

    HE pick rate along all 3 is quite similar, tho this patch id say silver helm see more play than dragon princes as those cannot perform their role anymore

    Empire seems quite an even spread also, likely blazing suns dominating but this one can be explained that they just very good due to fire attacks vs regen in a lot of match-ups.

    And once again cav is not the issue its infantry that is the issue, chaff especially upgrading like crazy 15CB vs 80 just lol.

    As for value gained by each unit, it just depends on opponents army and what happens in the game, i see no reason why same cost infantry cannot get same or more value as units from other roles, i have gotten 2000g on wild riders and i have gotten 0, i gotten 3000g on Phoenix guard and i have gotten 0.

    Chaff infantry has been the dominant type of infantry even back in the infinite knockdown meta because there's no value in bringing anything more expensive when you only ever need infantry to fill space, so reversing the knockdown and charge mechanics back to where they were won't change diddly about chaff infantry.

    If you want to see more elite infantry, don't restrict the role of infantry to just fill space or make filling space so overly important, it's that simple.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    Most metrics have flaws and won't paint a full picture. The best way is to know, see and think.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405

    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.

    While i'm on board with modifying the interaction to make it better for cav, note that cycle charging for example silver helms or empire knights into countercharging dryads is still an advantageous trade, and cycle charging expensive cav like dragon princes is extremely advantageous even when the dryads charge.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076

    @Lotus_Moon whether or not a unit is the the top or bottom of a category is irrelevant, they are both priced in the same units (gold) and that what is used to compare them.

    The question is how much value you can expect to get from your gold investment e.g. Can you get $1200 from a wild rider, can you get $1200 from a bladesinger.

    As I mentioned, I accept that mobility lacks in relative utility in the same way that you could have a spicy curry priced at $5 and an icecream priced at $5 but even though they are the same price you are going to have a lot greater quantity demanded (probably) for the ice-cream on a hot day at the beach than the curry. It isn't a perfect analogy, but shows the context of a purchase matters, Domination will change the game context in a way that incentives more use of cavalry/chariots even if prices and relative balance remains the same.

    Which is what makes it important to not overbuff units that will receive shadow buffs in Domination anyway, especially if based on traditional balance metrics they are performing appropriately (I believe they probably are but if they aren't, that changes the analysis and could be used to justify sweeping buffs)

    Its highly relevant, they pay for different things, i mean i dont see you pointing out that you see much less 500g cav comapred to 300g-500g infantry, why is that? likewise 800g cav compared to 600g - 900g infantry? why is that? doesnt suit the argument?

    if WE option of heavy cav is 1200g wild riders....than they got no option but to pick wild riders or no cav how do you not see that?

    If you want to compare breakdown of cav pick rates from "chaff", "mid" to "elite" look at Brets or High elves or empire.

    Brets never pick grails/gourians/yomen

    HE pick rate along all 3 is quite similar, tho this patch id say silver helm see more play than dragon princes as those cannot perform their role anymore

    Empire seems quite an even spread also, likely blazing suns dominating but this one can be explained that they just very good due to fire attacks vs regen in a lot of match-ups.

    And once again cav is not the issue its infantry that is the issue, chaff especially upgrading like crazy 15CB vs 80 just lol.

    As for value gained by each unit, it just depends on opponents army and what happens in the game, i see no reason why same cost infantry cannot get same or more value as units from other roles, i have gotten 2000g on wild riders and i have gotten 0, i gotten 3000g on Phoenix guard and i have gotten 0.
    The explanation for this goes back to the same concepts in my earlier comment.

    The reason there is far fewer options for cavalry in the sub-500 price range is that speed + stats costs more than just stats. That is why if you compare stats for something like a hound VS a Swordsmen, the swordsmen has much better stats except for speed at the same pricepoint.

    So because stats + speed cost more than just stats, and the demand curve shows that as price increases - > quantity demanded decreases, it makes perfect sense that units that are on average more expensive (cavalry) have lower pick rates than units that are on average cheaper (infantry).

    There is another concept relevant here and that is "Substitutes". A substitute is a good (unit) that can be used in the place of another good (unit). As prices rise for one good (unit), consumers (players) look for alternative unit they can pay less for to do the same thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good

    To take one of your examples, why doesn't Bret use Grails or Yeoman much? Well first as price rises to the high pricepoint of Grails, quantity demanded for Grails drops. Then players look for a substitute to do the same thing and more often than not find Questing Knights. A cheaper and more cost efficient unit that can play basically the same role (arguably undercoated as well). So they are the unit that gets picked more. For Yeoman it goes the other way, Yeoman aren't really a substitute for Knights Errants and it seems players find KE more useful than Yeoman in the average Bret build and so it impacts their pickrate (as well as KE being more cost-efficient in general).

    The point about Wild Riders at 1200 being the only option for heavy cav so need buffs misses the overall point. The only way to make Wild Riders a more common pick than Bladesingers in the current game when they cost the same (assuming both return their value at the same rate currently) is to make Wild Riders overpowered relative to Bladesingers. Because they are the same price, so if the unit is already recouping its value then any buffs increase the return on an investment of 1 gold into a wild rider compared to 1 gold investment into a Bladesinger.

    Now this relationship DOESN'T hold if Wild Riders can play a role in builds that other cheaper units of any type can't perform. As an example if CA were to add a race mode to the game, Wild Riders would always be a better pick than any WE infantry as the speed is what you need (although Glade Riders would take this role in reality as they are both faster and cheaper than Wild Riders).

    I can understand the desire to use more heavy cav, but the proposed method of doing this currently is basically to break the connection between price and unit power level for heavy cav (assuming cavalry pick rates at any pricepoint match the pick rates of other unit types at that price point). Which frankly is a really bad idea if all other metrics for these units say they are balanced equally alongside units of other types at the same pricepoints.

    It would be much better to attack the issue through the lens of "Substitutes". Make cavalry a more attractive pick by expanding gameplay options where cavalry can shine in game. That way the connection between price/power level/pick rates isn't broken across unit types and there are more situations that call for an investment of funds into cavalry. This is where Domination mode may assist if it is done well (or can be iterated on with feedback to do so).

    But there is only so much that can be done at the unit level when players are faced with a choice between investing 1100 into a wild rider or 1100 into 2 dryads, and a game mode that favours Dryad unit design over Wild rider unit design.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076

    Most metrics have flaws and won't paint a full picture. The best way is to know, see and think.

    Well I certainly hope you aren't approaching your contributions here in that order.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975

    Most metrics have flaws and won't paint a full picture. The best way is to know, see and think.

    Well I certainly hope you aren't approaching your contributions here in that order.
    No but seriously, having knowledge of the game, observe what is going on and then draw conclusions based on knowledge and observations gets you a long way.

    Whatever you choose for metric you must anyways base conclusions on assumptions of what is desirable. You end up just giving opinions at the end of the day anyways. Metrics are good for visualising change, but not much for proving what is good or bad.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    eumaies said:

    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.

    While i'm on board with modifying the interaction to make it better for cav, note that cycle charging for example silver helms or empire knights into countercharging dryads is still an advantageous trade, and cycle charging expensive cav like dragon princes is extremely advantageous even when the dryads charge.
    Last time i did tests it was not, i will re-test as soon as i get the time and come back to you.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    Dryads have so bad ap ratio, so if it's efficient it's only because of maximum mismatch in damage type for the dryads. Dryads vs unarmoured cav would be a different story...
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405

    Dryads have so bad ap ratio, so if it's efficient it's only because of maximum mismatch in damage type for the dryads. Dryads vs unarmoured cav would be a different story...

    For sure, unarmoured elite cav are in a really bad spot right now given their prices are based on their historical performance and durability.

    I was responding to Lotus' point about it not even being worth counter charging dryads with any cav other than blazing suns. It's not a great spot overall for cav, but it's not quite as bas as that for the arrmoured ones.

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462

    Dryads have so bad ap ratio, so if it's efficient it's only because of maximum mismatch in damage type for the dryads. Dryads vs unarmoured cav would be a different story...

    kinda like when GW marauders trade well against armored knights?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    RawSugar said:

    Dryads have so bad ap ratio, so if it's efficient it's only because of maximum mismatch in damage type for the dryads. Dryads vs unarmoured cav would be a different story...

    kinda like when GW marauders trade well against armored knights?
    No. Marauders GW have correct damage type vs knights and knights have correct damage type vs marauders.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    edited August 2021
    eumaies said:

    Dryads have so bad ap ratio, so if it's efficient it's only because of maximum mismatch in damage type for the dryads. Dryads vs unarmoured cav would be a different story...

    For sure, unarmoured elite cav are in a really bad spot right now given their prices are based on their historical performance and durability.

    I was responding to Lotus' point about it not even being worth counter charging dryads with any cav other than blazing suns. It's not a great spot overall for cav, but it's not quite as bas as that for the arrmoured ones.

    OK i was wrong, i did the tests, dyads loose gaining 350g value, before they break silver helms gain 450g (values are average tests were 6 v 6)

    and vs EMpire knights its much better for drayds.

    Dyards loose but gain on average 525 value, and empire knights 500,

    Above are with sustioned combat, with cycle charging (staying in combat 7s) its

    better, drayds 400 value and empire knights end up on 1/2 HP by the time drayds break, it took 4 cycle charges for it to happen.


    Just out of curiosity did swordsmen vs empire knights also and its

    Swordsmen value gained = 325g
    Empire knights value gained = 265g

    Above are average

    Gors 2H vs empire kngihts

    Gors value gained = 800
    Empire knights value gained = 500

    Gors 2H win and break the empire knights.

    Seems model numbers do matter both swordsmen and gors are 90.

    Gors 2h vs silver helms
    Gors value gained = 550
    SH = 450

    This seems to apply to infanry vs ifnantry also, gors trade really well into forsaken where on paper i do not think this should be the case

    Just to add something interesting, did gors in deeper formation (so 2 ranks deeper than spaghetti) to see how it affects the models in melee and empire kngihts take bit less dmg on charge (about 15%) but do get grinned out in the end

    Maybe solution could be force infantry into deeper formations, so less models are connecting on the charge

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    Dryads have 5 AP
    Swordsmen have 7 AP
    Gor herds have 11 AP

    I think that's the biggest reason.... it's just more than twice as many attacks going through as there ought to be and it adds up. If you have the correct damage type then they totally wreck cav, otherwise it's the amount of AP that matters the most.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
Sign In or Register to comment.