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?

12345679»

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    Perhaps you didn’t read or chose to ignore my whole point disposable.

    Bracing doesn’t work for spears into cav.

    Charging does.

    That’s a good thing. Because spears should be able to trade up in open field Vs cav if they’re not flanked or rear attacked.

    So yes nerfing inf cb Vs countercharging cav is an elegant solution.

    And no ca is not gonna fix bracing so get used to countercharging spears.

  • damon40000damon40000 Registered Users Posts: 1,267
    For cavalry its easy to do rear or side charge, for infantry its not. if GW infantry that have no shields, mobility or good enough stats to stay in combat for long cant even do some damage(while also recieving a lot) to cavalry that is caught on charge, what is it worth then?
    BsFG dwarf
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    eumaies said:

    Perhaps you didn’t read or chose to ignore my whole point disposable.

    Bracing doesn’t work for spears into cav.

    Charging does.

    That’s a good thing. Because spears should be able to trade up in open field Vs cav if they’re not flanked or rear attacked.

    So yes nerfing inf cb Vs countercharging cav is an elegant solution.

    And no ca is not gonna fix bracing so get used to countercharging spears.

    Sorry, it still doesn't cut it because it doesn't address the root of the problem and the bandaid addresses the wrong thing and would leave units with low md still on a **** place.

    The reason, because this is not a problem related to too high hit chance, it's a problem directly caused by too many attacks. So in order to fix it we need to once again allow disruption to affect combat results - both because it has the expected balance outcome and because it makes the engine more intelligent when it uses simulated attacks instead of forcing trades that ignore the context.

    I don't share the preset that bracing can't be fixed. Forcing trades is actually a reasonable mechanics for long lances charging braced spears. I am sure parts of this code could be added to cav attacking braced infantry with cdvl to ensure that they make attacks on impact too. Makes a lot of sense to go that route.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    I think the best solution would be to force attack by models that get knocked down but at 0 CB.
    The result is about the same as whole unit getting ½ CB, but you let visualization play a role and you dont have seasoned warriors get so flabbergasted a horsy is after them they forget to attack entirely - and you have a mix between 1.10 and 1.12 with GW losing ca. 35% damage and shield losing 25-30%...AL lose just 20%
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    You're just bending backwards to preserve the bug or part of the bug. It's perfectly simple to fix this, no reason to invent bandaids that will not fix it. Its easy enough to see the agenda being that knockbacks should not affect battle results, which is fundamentally wrong, leads to worse balance and makes the engine less intelligent. Why do you hate the game so much that you wish this for our game?

    Just turn off the stag hack for non-cav castes and stags bad animations will work and deal damage on impact, while all broken interactions gets repaired. Viola! Everything that was broken gets repaired, the one thing that needed fixing is still working.

    If you from there want to improve the interactions you could by all means do that, but do it with parameters that don't mess up the game. The stag hack was doing surgery with a chainsaw.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited September 2021
    stag hack improved balance in the game quite a bit, i definitely prefer the balance of 1.12 to 1.10, fast units should not be beating same cost infantry/slow units, unless they are specifically antiinfantry, GW infantry should be as viable as other infantry types. its possible to argue for some middle ground though

    in themselves the stats are balanced and the game playing more according to the stats is an improvement. but between models getting caught in fast units and charge defense working even while in melee i can see some point to arguing for a buff of cavalry, whether by stats or some partial countercharge defense. but the countercharge defense of 1.10 went way too far, essentially making speed free.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    Well, that's like your opinion. I prefer a more intelligent engine and better balance between all unit types.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    RawSugar said:

    I think the best solution would be to force attack by models that get knocked down but at 0 CB.
    The result is about the same as whole unit getting ½ CB, but you let visualization play a role and you dont have seasoned warriors get so flabbergasted a horsy is after them they forget to attack entirely - and you have a mix between 1.10 and 1.12 with GW losing ca. 35% damage and shield losing 25-30%...AL lose just 20%

    If this resaults in those numbers than i finally agree with you, perhaps in the end we agree on what the final outcome should be but the process or solution we suggest differ? PS i dont have a strong suggestion on how to fix it just i jump on some suggestions i liked from others, if your suggestion would fix it i like it also.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837

    Well, that's like your opinion. I prefer a more intelligent engine and better balance between all unit types.

    For me its more about making the trade with roughtly the % i described before and i dont care too much if it looks good or not, that can be done in game 3, for game 2 just a bandaid fix that focuses on the outcome and not the process is fine for me, as for game 3 the process that its achived in is very important.

    I say this because i think there is 0% chance of it being fixed in a way that looks and feels rite with interactions since it does need lots testing and might affect other balance.

    The solution to 1/2 charge bonus i had before when cav vs infantry frontal charge is not idael and not intelligent in my view BUT it would help lower the impact of this interaction and its something that can be done without too much drama for game 2, for game 3 it be a bad way to fix it. Basically i would take a bandaid fix over nothing now with knowing now chance for proper fix in games 2 life.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462

    RawSugar said:

    I think the best solution would be to force attack by models that get knocked down but at 0 CB.
    The result is about the same as whole unit getting ½ CB, but you let visualization play a role and you dont have seasoned warriors get so flabbergasted a horsy is after them they forget to attack entirely - and you have a mix between 1.10 and 1.12 with GW losing ca. 35% damage and shield losing 25-30%...AL lose just 20%

    If this resaults in those numbers than i finally agree with you, perhaps in the end we agree on what the final outcome should be but the process or solution we suggest differ? PS i dont have a strong suggestion on how to fix it just i jump on some suggestions i liked from others, if your suggestion would fix it i like it also.
    ye we agree that some middle ground is viable, and have for some time, although i think if thats not an option I'd go with 1.12 and you'd prefer 1.10^^ My main concerns are that i want GW to not be disproportionally hurt and that sword infantry should trade decently in the countercharge...½ CB/partial knockdown isnt ideal but its reasonable, and since most fast units are armored it might be quite balanced.
    I'd still want charge defense to not work in melee and bracing to be much more powerful, and maybe to move at least some CB to MA for GW infantry
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975

    Well, that's like your opinion. I prefer a more intelligent engine and better balance between all unit types.

    For me its more about making the trade with roughtly the % i described before and i dont care too much if it looks good or not, that can be done in game 3, for game 2 just a bandaid fix that focuses on the outcome and not the process is fine for me, as for game 3 the process that its achived in is very important.

    I say this because i think there is 0% chance of it being fixed in a way that looks and feels rite with interactions since it does need lots testing and might affect other balance.

    The solution to 1/2 charge bonus i had before when cav vs infantry frontal charge is not idael and not intelligent in my view BUT it would help lower the impact of this interaction and its something that can be done without too much drama for game 2, for game 3 it be a bad way to fix it. Basically i would take a bandaid fix over nothing now with knowing now chance for proper fix in games 2 life.
    Then we disagree on this. It's prefect simple to fix it, just turn the hack off for infantry. It's literally one statement in the code to add and it will restore balance to 1.10.2 with the exception that stags will work.

    The intelligence comes for free by inactivating the forced trading for infantry. We had it and we lost it for to a mistake. .

    Fixing bracing takes a few more lines, that could wait without breaking anything.

    The big problem with a bandaid is that it will affect different unit combinations completely differently. It will do very little for a unit with good stats and low cb, or will do a lot for units with bad stats but big cb. It will over all help units with low md less. In other words, the units that need help the most, the ones relying on big cb but with low md, like the most niched shock cav and chariots.... They would still be bad. Its not a fix, and it would cause new balance problems that we didn't have before.

    I also don't care how it looks, but in order to get back intelligent interactions without creating new imbalance we need to control the number of attacks being made, not change the hit chance of only some units.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,076
    eumaies said:

    Perhaps you didn’t read or chose to ignore my whole point disposable.

    Bracing doesn’t work for spears into cav.

    Charging does.

    That’s a good thing. Because spears should be able to trade up in open field Vs cav if they’re not flanked or rear attacked.

    So yes nerfing inf cb Vs countercharging cav is an elegant solution.

    And no ca is not gonna fix bracing so get used to countercharging spears.

    There is also the option of making it so if you charge it either cannot be cancelled for X seconds or if it is cancelled it comes with some form of a penalty. So it would turn into a situation of bracing needing to be done at the right time, and charging needing to be done at the right time. This would be a big change that would need a lot of testing but could possibly balance out okay.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975

    RawSugar said:

    I think the best solution would be to force attack by models that get knocked down but at 0 CB.
    The result is about the same as whole unit getting ½ CB, but you let visualization play a role and you dont have seasoned warriors get so flabbergasted a horsy is after them they forget to attack entirely - and you have a mix between 1.10 and 1.12 with GW losing ca. 35% damage and shield losing 25-30%...AL lose just 20%

    If this resaults in those numbers than i finally agree with you, perhaps in the end we agree on what the final outcome should be but the process or solution we suggest differ? PS i dont have a strong suggestion on how to fix it just i jump on some suggestions i liked from others, if your suggestion would fix it i like it also.


    Just to illustrate, this is the effect of band-aiding the CB. The winners are infantry with high stats, so elven units profit while the losers are infantry with low stats and high CB, like red crests or savage orcs etc. So against my persumed bias, I would not like this band-aid since it introduces new imbalance and most importantly, a band-aid like this would cement the role of Spears/Halberds as offensive units vs cavalry... just upside-down from the original design.

    I agree that if the only other alternative is nothing, then this is better, but I think 1.10.2 is a superior starting point for balance compared to 1.12.0 since interactions are not forced in 1.10.2, they are being played out and momentum is allowed to interact.

    if (caste == "melee cavalry") { stag_hack(); }

    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    Just so its not missed:

    "CA_Duck

    My take on it hasn't really changed. Infantry are getting too many attacks in on the charge, to a degree that I'd consider it to be a bug. Additionally, the mechanical balance between bracing and counter-charging is horribly skewed in favour of counter-charging. Finally there are also just issues with how easily cavalry gets tangled inside the infantry unit in a counter-charge situation, further making counter-charging into infantry a bad idea. So all in all, its a mix of issues that results in an unintended gameplay interactions."


    Link to post: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/296366/the-reason-behind-tuskgor-razorgor-and-boar-chariot-imbalance#latest
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 758
    The Slann Hath Spoken Again, Praised be the Old Ones. The Ancient (excel) Tables were True.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Yep, bracing was as I have been saying for years, always completely useless and did absolutely nothing for infantry.

    Why people think that means that the infinite knockdown meta is vindicated is of course a mystery because it means counter-charging was always the better alternative and reverting any changes would not change it.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837

    Yep, bracing was as I have been saying for years, always completely useless and did absolutely nothing for infantry.

    Why people think that means that the infinite knockdown meta is vindicated is of course a mystery because it means counter-charging was always the better alternative and reverting any changes would not change it.

    false
  • y4g3ry4g3r Registered Users Posts: 559

    Yep, bracing was as I have been saying for years, always completely useless and did absolutely nothing for infantry.

    Read it again. The current 'bug' heavily favours counter charging over bracing. There's nothing there saying bracing is completely useless.

    That said, I wouldn't be against bracing receiving a buff. I personally think it needs more. But that wasn't what duck said. Don't spread lies.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    y4g3r said:

    Yep, bracing was as I have been saying for years, always completely useless and did absolutely nothing for infantry.

    Read it again. The current 'bug' heavily favours counter charging over bracing. There's nothing there saying bracing is completely useless.

    That said, I wouldn't be against bracing receiving a buff. I personally think it needs more. But that wasn't what duck said. Don't spread lies.
    it's not lies. and even if duck thinks bracing works for some casual gameplay (not clear that he does, but even if) the fact is in competitive play bracing offers very little utility. it's a way to avoid taking damage but doesn't change that you can be run over through swarming and cycling. The key to end game power in this game is the ability to make attacks.
  • y4g3ry4g3r Registered Users Posts: 559
    eumaies said:

    and even if duck thinks bracing works for some casual gameplay (not clear that he does, but even if) the fact is in competitive play bracing offers very little utility

    More caveats. Don't twist his comments to add to your narrative.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    y4g3r said:

    eumaies said:

    and even if duck thinks bracing works for some casual gameplay (not clear that he does, but even if) the fact is in competitive play bracing offers very little utility

    More caveats. Don't twist his comments to add to your narrative.
    twist his comments? on the contrary his comments suggest he may now think bracing is actually useful.

    if so we may be headed back to a complete turnaround in which anti large infantry are **** in the end game again and equal value spears lose to equal value cav. i hope not but most of what animates debates here anyway is the sneaking suspicion that ca balancing is hamfisted and binary and meeting in the middle just isnt possible. We'll see.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    eumaies said:

    y4g3r said:

    eumaies said:

    and even if duck thinks bracing works for some casual gameplay (not clear that he does, but even if) the fact is in competitive play bracing offers very little utility

    More caveats. Don't twist his comments to add to your narrative.
    twist his comments? on the contrary his comments suggest he may now think bracing is actually useful.

    if so we may be headed back to a complete turnaround in which anti large infantry are **** in the end game again and equal value spears lose to equal value cav. i hope not but most of what animates debates here anyway is the sneaking suspicion that ca balancing is hamfisted and binary and meeting in the middle just isnt possible. We'll see.
    Very sure his talking about Shiros comments being twisted, which i agree with, there is a massive difference between bracing not working and bracing not being useful in practice in most cases.

    Because it did and does work, however in practice its not hard to go around it and nullify it and i do support improvement on this matter, i do think though nullifying it is is an issue mainly when the braced unit is on a flank or in the open, i feel as part of formation to the front its not hard to apply it, this is most evident with units such as silverin guards who apply it to all targets and are used as front lines, because when the units are in a block of 3 or 5 you cannot just go around them, issue was also before empire halberds when they had it and formed boxes, ofcourse faster units have an even easier time but they still cannot go around and nullify it if there is simply no room, so i do think it works and achives its outcome however i do also think there could be stuff added so its easier for anti large units to brace vs cav and monsters.

    A thing that is on my mind would be, that units that braced keep their bracing effect for the next 5s unless they make a charge so long as they are facing the opponents unit, if they make a charge the bracing effect does not apply so you cannot be charging and getting brace at same time, but if u braced and they try to go around you can rotate and apply brace, if opponent keeps doing it more than 5s you can just re-brace and re apply your bracing and shoot him during the mean time so unless you army is all melee they cannot afford to be trying to go around you all the time.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    eumaies said:

    y4g3r said:

    eumaies said:

    and even if duck thinks bracing works for some casual gameplay (not clear that he does, but even if) the fact is in competitive play bracing offers very little utility

    More caveats. Don't twist his comments to add to your narrative.
    twist his comments? on the contrary his comments suggest he may now think bracing is actually useful.

    if so we may be headed back to a complete turnaround in which anti large infantry are **** in the end game again and equal value spears lose to equal value cav. i hope not but most of what animates debates here anyway is the sneaking suspicion that ca balancing is hamfisted and binary and meeting in the middle just isnt possible. We'll see.
    In 1.10.2 you trade fine still, if you don't it's because of non-ap damage vs armoured cav. It was never abusive in 1.10.2. Marauders gw still traded about even or better without infantry bug when countercharging. Let's not do another full cycle of moved goalposts to try to buff infantry.

    Bracing specifically could use some work, maybe I'll post my suggestion for it later, it's a very unpolished idea just at the moment.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405


    eumaies said:

    y4g3r said:

    eumaies said:

    and even if duck thinks bracing works for some casual gameplay (not clear that he does, but even if) the fact is in competitive play bracing offers very little utility

    More caveats. Don't twist his comments to add to your narrative.
    twist his comments? on the contrary his comments suggest he may now think bracing is actually useful.

    if so we may be headed back to a complete turnaround in which anti large infantry are **** in the end game again and equal value spears lose to equal value cav. i hope not but most of what animates debates here anyway is the sneaking suspicion that ca balancing is hamfisted and binary and meeting in the middle just isnt possible. We'll see.
    In 1.10.2 you trade fine still, if you don't it's because of non-ap damage vs armoured cav. It was never abusive in 1.10.2. Marauders gw still traded about even or better without infantry bug when countercharging. Let's not do another full cycle of moved goalposts to try to buff infantry.

    Bracing specifically could use some work, maybe I'll post my suggestion for it later, it's a very unpolished idea just at the moment.
    no one is talking about mauraders, im talking about spears and bracing. if cav dont get any models emmeshed and bracing still is inneffective thats worse for spears than 1.10.2. we'll see.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    I do like the general implied thrust of his comments around reducing the number of models that get to attack. That seems like something you could scale back on a continuous scale until you find a comfortable spot.

    But if the idea would be to scale it back so far that spears prefer to brace than to countercharge, that seems implausible given how bracing currently works. I mean I use bracing in certain circumstances when the goal is just to hold for other units and there are lot of units on the field. But in a late game situation bracing doesn't do much.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 806
    edited September 2021
    What would be nice is if braced units got some bonus to damage and/or attack if successfully doing so. Again assuming fixes for everything.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837

    What would be nice is if braced units got some bonus to damage and/or attack if successfully doing so. Again assuming fixes for everything.

    I dont understand why? or you mean as an incentive for units with no charge defence to brace? I dont see why those should get other benefits from bracing other than mass, and units with charge defense well they get their benefit.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 806
    Yeah pretty much units that don’t have defense idk I agree there’s problems with the idea but realistically no melee block infantry formation would ever not brace vs cavalry if able.

    Charging cavalry on foot sounds inherently stupid maybe fo orcs but they’re massive.

    Who know maybe someone has a historical example of successful foot charge vs a charging cavalry formation.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837

    Yeah pretty much units that don’t have defense idk I agree there’s problems with the idea but realistically no melee block infantry formation would ever not brace vs cavalry if able.

    Charging cavalry on foot sounds inherently stupid maybe fo orcs but they’re massive.

    Who know maybe someone has a historical example of successful foot charge vs a charging cavalry formation.

    Well i think its better to look at it from warhammer rules point of view, rather than historical since warhammer has dragons etc so its hard to apply historical logic while ignoring what exists, the benefit is still more dmg done when the unit does not brace and uses its charge bonus vs cav, so its still worth counter charging units into cav even after the fix will happen as it always was, its just cav trades up on the charge mostly unless the unit has charge defense.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 806


    Well i think its better to look at it from warhammer rules point of view, rather than historical since warhammer has dragons etc so its hard to apply historical logic while ignoring what exists, the benefit is still more dmg done when the unit does not brace and uses its charge bonus vs cav, so its still worth counter charging units into cav even after the fix will happen as it always was, its just cav trades up on the charge mostly unless the unit has charge defense.

    Fair enough hopefully when patch happens it will become more obvious what else needs balancing was super glad that the Duck cleared some things up though.
Sign In or Register to comment.