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

Cavalry charging into full HP infantry should be disastrous for the cavalry

24

Comments

  • yst#1879yst#1879 Registered Users Posts: 10,000

    A braced unit can't initiate an attack. So the argument from some is that to be effective against cav infantry need to cooperate with another unit so that infantry brace and other unit shoots the cav while braced infantry gets in the way of cav charging in.

    Yet at the same time people are saying its unacceptable for cav to need to rely on another unit to tie their target up so they can charge in the rear/flank and kill them. To some people Cav wont be acceptable until they can charge in from the front alone and beat mid/high tier ap infantry of a similar cost.

    There is obvious bias from anyone making that argument.

    Yep exactly, inf will never, ever engage cav unless the later allows it.

    1 single cav can easily disable an army of 5 inf circling like s shark, coz theres nothing those inf cav do other than bracing snd turning, any of them not doing it gets 1 shotted by cav when they r caught moving unbraced
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • AfghanMambaAfghanMamba Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 69
    That would make for boring gameplay with smoothbrain infantry spam if such charges were “disastrous” for cavalry.
  • #21546#21546 Registered Users Posts: 4,761
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642

    That would make for boring gameplay with smoothbrain infantry spam if such charges were “disastrous” for cavalry.

    not if you have other melee classes that are strong in head on charges, like chariots and antiinfantry fast melee
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    That would make for boring gameplay with smoothbrain infantry spam if such charges were “disastrous” for cavalry.

    As opposed to the cheap infantry spam we see right now caused by infantry being mainly used as a mobile fence?

    You want less infantry spam? Make going tall with elite infantry actually viable.

    Nerfing infantry just means you keep the current malaise in place.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    You need to distinguish between spears and swordsmen, or in broader terms anti-large/cdvl and infantry whose role is not to counter cavalry.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26
    edited September 2021
    [Deleted by poster due to double-post]
    Post edited by WNDS#8673 on
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26
    edited September 2021
    Forum swallows my post (I think?) So I'll try again...

    I feel that elite greatweapon infantry should actually remain great against cavalry on the counter-charge, defeating low tier cavalry outright as a result of the initial damage done, and only just losing to most elite cavalry in this same context.

    Basically, I see it as follows:

    Low- and mid-tier sword infantry should be heavily damaged by most cavalry on the charge, whether the infantry unit is idle, braced, or counter-charging. They are not a counter to cav in anything other than weight of numbers.

    Low- and mid-tier spear/halberd infantry will fare much better than sword infantry, but only if braced (and they will still lose vs elites albeit 'cost-effectively') They will lose very badly if they counter-charge the cavalry, as spears and halberds are generally formation weapons.

    Elite greatweapon infantry will perform as I mentioned at the start of this post; they will be great at counter-charging, in the same way that shock cav are great at charging. But they are obviously less mobile than cav, and should also lose badly to elite cavalry if they are charged whilst idle or 'braced'. Greatweapons are not really true 'formation' weapons, and should have their potential for shock damage emphasised as much as possible; receiving charges and grinding is not really their thing.

    Elite spear/halberd infantry is the complete opposite. They will win against any cavalry unit that charges them when they are braced, and their anti-large bonus will make them more effective at grinding in sustained combat vs cav if the cav don't withdraw. Spears and halberds are formation weapons, and should act as such.

    I feel that this gives elite greatweapon infantry more utility and tactical flexibility without allowing for them to be OP. The above suggestion could result in more rush play, but the counter to that would be.... Elite greatweapon units of your own mixed in with the standard/chaff infantry + all the usual counters like AP missiles, massed non-AP missiles, magic, kite builds, flying single-entities that can't be counter-charged at the outset etc.

    This also means that players will have more viable builds to choose from, with choices to be made about how wide you want to go in view of greatweapons' viability against cav on the charge + the threat of an elite infantry rush. If elite greatweapons can counter cav when properly microed, then it might tempt more players into selecting them as all-round melee shock-troops rather than simply using tons of cheap infantry to screen the actual (read non-infantry) damage-dealers. You would also have to consider what class of elite infantry you want to bring (greatweapons or spears/halberds), as they would both be viable, but function in completely opposite ways to each other during close-combat (spears/halberds being much better when stationary and in sustained combat vs large).

    The viability of elite weapons vs cav on the counter-charge could also give-rise to interesting dilemmas during battle, such as whether it is a good moment to charge your expensive elite cav into elite greatweapons. The value you could get from this would be enormously dependent upon specific situational circumstances unique to each battle (e.g. do you think your opponent is going to get the counter-charge, is the risk worth it in view of the builds that have been taken, what has already happened during the battle up to this point etc); it would reward a player's ability to read situations correctly and their ability to understand the overall flow of battle.
  • griffithx#1314griffithx#1314 Registered Users Posts: 1,518
    edited September 2021

    You need to distinguish between spears and swordsmen, or in broader terms anti-large/cdvl and infantry whose role is not to counter cavalry.

    That is the question tho. What should be the role for different types of infantry?
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26

    You need to distinguish between spears and swordsmen, or in broader terms anti-large/cdvl and infantry whose role is not to counter cavalry.

    That is the question tho. What should be the role for different types of infantry?
    Well I've given a breakdown of my opinion in the post above. It feels intuitive to me, but maybe that's just the problem? I suspect that what I've suggested has probably been suggested many times before, and just isn't viable. But basically I think that elite greatweapon infantry should function more similarly to Black Orcs across the board, and so fulfill the function of generalist foot-based shock troops (with very high charge bonus).

    Pre- counter-charge bug (and possibly post-), most elite greatsword infantry were good against chaff (albeit generally getting bogged-down by weight of numbers in non- cost-effective trades) and other units of the same type; nothing else. I suggest letting them retain excellent shock-damage on the counter-charge (and probably ONLY the counter-charge) against cav and other large-entity units to allow them more utility and overall viability. Other infantry types that are overperforming on the counter-charge should be returned to where they were before the bug became an issue.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    You need to distinguish between spears and swordsmen, or in broader terms anti-large/cdvl and infantry whose role is not to counter cavalry.

    That is the question tho. What should be the role for different types of infantry?
    Isn't that pretty obvious?
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565

    You need to distinguish between spears and swordsmen, or in broader terms anti-large/cdvl and infantry whose role is not to counter cavalry.

    That is the question tho. What should be the role for different types of infantry?
    Isn't that pretty obvious?
    the thing is people don't agree on it so apparently not, should anti infantry with only melee capabilities beat an anti infantry melee cav of the same teir and price point, different people think different sides should win, infantry win believe that the speed difference should mean the cav has to use it to win the fight, while others think that abusing charges should give you free wins, and about counter charging, some units should counter charge cav, or anything coming at them, like slayers it is weird they want to brace, when they should want to counter charge cav with there current implementation
  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 2,945
    some units should counter charge cav, or anything coming at them, like slayers it is weird they want to brace, when they should want to counter charge cav with there current implementation

    What makes you say that? Slayers don't have charge defense, they have high CB and they have high mass. Why would you not counter charge with them?

    Bracing only protects from collision damage unless you have Charge Defense. Bracing is not nearly ever worth it unless you have charge defense.

    Slayers have high CB, AL, high mass and no Charge Defense. They the best type of infantry to counter charge with, especially if they are giant slayers.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 2,047
    WNDS said:

    Why not have it be that elite greatsword infantry do serious damage to cavalry on the counter-charge as is currently the case, but remove this interaction result from all other lower tier infantry + also high tier spear/halberds?

    Basically:

    Low- and mid-tier sword infantry get destroyed by most cav charges in any situation

    Low- and mid-tier spears trade upward against cav if braced, but don't do tons of damage. They lose badly on the counter-charge.

    High tier greatsword infantry (and stuff like Black Orcs) win against low tier cav on the counter-charge, and do a lot of damage to elite cav as well (but just about lose in most cases). They lose pretty badly if idle or bracing, as they don't have spears/halberds.

    High tier spears and halberds are the opposite; they win if braced + in sustained combat, but lose on the counter-charge.


    This seems intuitive to me. Spears and halberds are formation weapons, and gain an advantage in this context. Swords and greatweapons generally require more space to use effectively, and so make more sense doing damage in the context of a charge or counter-charge.

    Perhaps there is a risk of the above encouraging too much rush play, but an elite greatweapon rush could be countered by elite greatweapons of your own mixed-in with your standard/chaff infantry. It would make elite infantry possess more utility and help them to be more viable, without neutering cav. + Elite greatweapon infantry would remain vulnerable to AP missiles, massed non-AP missiles, magic, certain types of single-entity (particularly fliers who can't be counter-charged) etc.

    This also has the potential to create interesting tactical dilemmas during battle:

    Would you want to risk losing elite cav to a counter-charge from elite greatweapons if it meant taking-out that same greatweapon unit? Would depend on the builds, what else had already happened in the battle, whether you feel that you will catch your opponent out (so no counter-charge) etc. In short, it would be situational, and dependent upon your ability to read the flow of the battle.

    Then there would be the strategic build-design choices that would result:

    If elite greatweapon infantry has that extra bit of utility and becomes truly viable against both infantry and cav (but only on the counter-charge in the case of the latter), then there are actual choices to be made regarding how wide or deep you want to go, and what type of elites you want (greatweapons that do more damage in a short period of time and are more mobile, but remain vulnerable to sustained cycle-charging; spears/halberds that are much better when braced and grinding-out a fight against cav or single-entities due to anti-large).


    Probably a suggestion that has be made before, and maybe isn't as viable as I'm thinking, but I'm just putting this out there in case it hasn't been....

    Not terrible aspirations but implementation is difficult. Charging as a mechanic provides 3 benefits. First, it starts attacks during the charge animation not after collision which leads to faster damage application. Second it allows more entities to engage than normal sustained combat appears to. Third it benefits from CB increasing WS and MA. Only element three is easily adjusted with existing stats in game and the first two appear to be larger contributors to the current imbalance, given that the GSK bug was primarily impairing the first two factors.

    Since larger entity units benefit more from charging the mechanic is much harder to balance for cheap units that can pay for themselves rapidly when compared to mid-tier and elite infantry. While it's possible to balance around this it would also make cheap infantry less effective into other infantry, which is less of concern if any adjustments to infantry performance were symmetric. Personally I think cheap infantry have been over performing for some time now and wouldn't object to hitting them more heavily on the charge, but that's a personal opinion not a suggested bug fix.

    Also since CB is only one benefit received by the charge AL units in the current game are going to benefit from charging large targets even if you set their CB to 0. AL boni applies in all circumstances after all so creating a situation where AL units specifically lose on the counter charge is currently difficult (seriously still looking for suggestions here, especially given there are some AL units which are designed to charge rather than brace).

    I think aiming to start with symmetric changes to charge performance to address the identified issue is safer. After infantry damage isn't producing absurdly positive trades we can look at differentiating performance within infantry.
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26
    Bastilean said:

    some units should counter charge cav, or anything coming at them, like slayers it is weird they want to brace, when they should want to counter charge cav with there current implementation

    What makes you say that? Slayers don't have charge defense, they have high CB and they have high mass. Why would you not counter charge with them?

    Bracing only protects from collision damage unless you have Charge Defense. Bracing is not nearly ever worth it unless you have charge defense.

    Slayers have high CB, AL, high mass and no Charge Defense. They the best type of infantry to counter charge with, especially if they are giant slayers.

    And this is how I feel that it should be (or remain, taking into account the infantry counter-charge bug) for elite greatweapon units (minus Slayers' Bonus vs Large); you should always be looking for the charge/counter-charge whether you are against infantry or cav. Difference being that they can chop through infantry in a sustained fight due to Bonus vs Infantry, but are fully reliant on charge bonus to do serious damage vs elite cav.

    If bracing can be tweaked to make it more responsive/better, then it becomes more a question of preferred playstyle as to whether you choose specialist anti-large to counter cav by defensive actions, positioning and attrition (with the possibility of coming out of the engagement with the win outright due to Bonus vs Large), or whether you counter them with the generalist elite shock infantry with greatweapons where the realistic aim would be to mutual strike your opponents' elite cav rather than have your GW infantry win outright as spears/halberds could. The appeal of the greatweapons would be the tactical flexibility and front-loaded damage they give you, but at the expense of durability/reliability. pre- counter-charge bug, most elite GW units didn't afford you any real tactical flexibility or opportunty to use them in calculated trade-off engagements, so most players didn't use them much.
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26
    edited September 2021

    WNDS said:

    Why not have it be that elite greatsword infantry do serious damage to cavalry on the counter-charge as is currently the case, but remove this interaction result from all other lower tier infantry + also high tier spear/halberds?

    Basically:

    Low- and mid-tier sword infantry get destroyed by most cav charges in any situation

    Low- and mid-tier spears trade upward against cav if braced, but don't do tons of damage. They lose badly on the counter-charge.

    High tier greatsword infantry (and stuff like Black Orcs) win against low tier cav on the counter-charge, and do a lot of damage to elite cav as well (but just about lose in most cases). They lose pretty badly if idle or bracing, as they don't have spears/halberds.

    High tier spears and halberds are the opposite; they win if braced + in sustained combat, but lose on the counter-charge.


    This seems intuitive to me. Spears and halberds are formation weapons, and gain an advantage in this context. Swords and greatweapons generally require more space to use effectively, and so make more sense doing damage in the context of a charge or counter-charge.

    Perhaps there is a risk of the above encouraging too much rush play, but an elite greatweapon rush could be countered by elite greatweapons of your own mixed-in with your standard/chaff infantry. It would make elite infantry possess more utility and help them to be more viable, without neutering cav. + Elite greatweapon infantry would remain vulnerable to AP missiles, massed non-AP missiles, magic, certain types of single-entity (particularly fliers who can't be counter-charged) etc.

    This also has the potential to create interesting tactical dilemmas during battle:

    Would you want to risk losing elite cav to a counter-charge from elite greatweapons if it meant taking-out that same greatweapon unit? Would depend on the builds, what else had already happened in the battle, whether you feel that you will catch your opponent out (so no counter-charge) etc. In short, it would be situational, and dependent upon your ability to read the flow of the battle.

    Then there would be the strategic build-design choices that would result:

    If elite greatweapon infantry has that extra bit of utility and becomes truly viable against both infantry and cav (but only on the counter-charge in the case of the latter), then there are actual choices to be made regarding how wide or deep you want to go, and what type of elites you want (greatweapons that do more damage in a short period of time and are more mobile, but remain vulnerable to sustained cycle-charging; spears/halberds that are much better when braced and grinding-out a fight against cav or single-entities due to anti-large).


    Probably a suggestion that has be made before, and maybe isn't as viable as I'm thinking, but I'm just putting this out there in case it hasn't been....

    Not terrible aspirations but implementation is difficult. Charging as a mechanic provides 3 benefits. First, it starts attacks during the charge animation not after collision which leads to faster damage application. Second it allows more entities to engage than normal sustained combat appears to. Third it benefits from CB increasing WS and MA. Only element three is easily adjusted with existing stats in game and the first two appear to be larger contributors to the current imbalance, given that the GSK bug was primarily impairing the first two factors.

    Since larger entity units benefit more from charging the mechanic is much harder to balance for cheap units that can pay for themselves rapidly when compared to mid-tier and elite infantry. While it's possible to balance around this it would also make cheap infantry less effective into other infantry, which is less of concern if any adjustments to infantry performance were symmetric. Personally I think cheap infantry have been over performing for some time now and wouldn't object to hitting them more heavily on the charge, but that's a personal opinion not a suggested bug fix.

    Also since CB is only one benefit received by the charge AL units in the current game are going to benefit from charging large targets even if you set their CB to 0. AL boni applies in all circumstances after all so creating a situation where AL units specifically lose on the counter charge is currently difficult (seriously still looking for suggestions here, especially given there are some AL units which are designed to charge rather than brace).

    I think aiming to start with symmetric changes to charge performance to address the identified issue is safer. After infantry damage isn't producing absurdly positive trades we can look at differentiating performance within infantry.

    Ha! You managed to find my original lost post (somehow...).

    Anyway, I would say that it seems as though the issue being discussed here is less one of bug-fixing at this stage, and more one of how to ensure that the bug-fix doesn't simply revert the meta to having elite greatsword infantry (and honestly just most elite infantry in general) be an inefficient investment. I mean, has there EVER been a time where HE swordmasters (for example) were genuinely part of the meta (except against Dwarfs)? And I'm not talking about swordmaster rushes, but about them simply being a unit 1 or 2 of which you would see used fairly regularly in a variety of competitive builds...

    GW infantry generally lack versatility and utility; they need something extra given to them, and I think having a seriously damaging counter-charge vs cav is how they get it (+ maybe as a result being even more devastating vs chaff infantry than they already are; I don't see this as too much of a problem in principle due to the sheer quantity of chaff that certain factions can bring pretty much unpunished).


    You would then have (very roughly):

    Elite greatweapon infantry being: excellent vs other infantry, decent vs cav (and maybe certain Single Entitites) IF they get the counter-charge, weak to elite cav if not countercharging them, weak to ranged (+some spells, flyers, kite builds etc.)

    Elite spears/halberds being: weak/inefficient vs other infantry (but able to hold unless it's elite GW), excellent vs cav and SE, weak to ranged (+some spells, flyers, kite builds etc.)

    Elite cavalry being: very strong vs low- and mid-tier infantry + non- counter-charging elite greatweapon infantry, closely matched with elite GW infantry IF they counter-charge, weak against elite spears/halberds (+some spells, kite builds etc., although their mobility can offset quite a bit of this)


    Obviously much MUCH easier said (or written) than done. But I feel that something along these lines needs to be done. This way every elite (non-SE) close combat unit-type has multiple genuine uses offset by multiple genuine weaknesses. For too long too many elite GW infantry have been giving your opponent a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose' situation if you take them.
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26
    edited September 2021
    [Is this forum always going to swallow my posts every other time I make an edit to them, only to regurgitate it later in the form of double- or triple-posts? :p ]
  • WNDS#8673WNDS#8673 Registered Users Posts: 26

    WNDS said:

    Why not have it be that elite greatsword infantry do serious damage to cavalry on the counter-charge as is currently the case, but remove this interaction result from all other lower tier infantry + also high tier spear/halberds?

    Basically:

    Low- and mid-tier sword infantry get destroyed by most cav charges in any situation

    Low- and mid-tier spears trade upward against cav if braced, but don't do tons of damage. They lose badly on the counter-charge.

    High tier greatsword infantry (and stuff like Black Orcs) win against low tier cav on the counter-charge, and do a lot of damage to elite cav as well (but just about lose in most cases). They lose pretty badly if idle or bracing, as they don't have spears/halberds.

    High tier spears and halberds are the opposite; they win if braced + in sustained combat, but lose on the counter-charge.


    This seems intuitive to me. Spears and halberds are formation weapons, and gain an advantage in this context. Swords and greatweapons generally require more space to use effectively, and so make more sense doing damage in the context of a charge or counter-charge.

    Perhaps there is a risk of the above encouraging too much rush play, but an elite greatweapon rush could be countered by elite greatweapons of your own mixed-in with your standard/chaff infantry. It would make elite infantry possess more utility and help them to be more viable, without neutering cav. + Elite greatweapon infantry would remain vulnerable to AP missiles, massed non-AP missiles, magic, certain types of single-entity (particularly fliers who can't be counter-charged) etc.

    This also has the potential to create interesting tactical dilemmas during battle:

    Would you want to risk losing elite cav to a counter-charge from elite greatweapons if it meant taking-out that same greatweapon unit? Would depend on the builds, what else had already happened in the battle, whether you feel that you will catch your opponent out (so no counter-charge) etc. In short, it would be situational, and dependent upon your ability to read the flow of the battle.

    Then there would be the strategic build-design choices that would result:

    If elite greatweapon infantry has that extra bit of utility and becomes truly viable against both infantry and cav (but only on the counter-charge in the case of the latter), then there are actual choices to be made regarding how wide or deep you want to go, and what type of elites you want (greatweapons that do more damage in a short period of time and are more mobile, but remain vulnerable to sustained cycle-charging; spears/halberds that are much better when braced and grinding-out a fight against cav or single-entities due to anti-large).


    Probably a suggestion that has be made before, and maybe isn't as viable as I'm thinking, but I'm just putting this out there in case it hasn't been....

    Not terrible aspirations but implementation is difficult. Charging as a mechanic provides 3 benefits. First, it starts attacks during the charge animation not after collision which leads to faster damage application. Second it allows more entities to engage than normal sustained combat appears to. Third it benefits from CB increasing WS and MA. Only element three is easily adjusted with existing stats in game and the first two appear to be larger contributors to the current imbalance, given that the GSK bug was primarily impairing the first two factors.

    Since larger entity units benefit more from charging the mechanic is much harder to balance for cheap units that can pay for themselves rapidly when compared to mid-tier and elite infantry. While it's possible to balance around this it would also make cheap infantry less effective into other infantry, which is less of concern if any adjustments to infantry performance were symmetric. Personally I think cheap infantry have been over performing for some time now and wouldn't object to hitting them more heavily on the charge, but that's a personal opinion not a suggested bug fix.

    Also since CB is only one benefit received by the charge AL units in the current game are going to benefit from charging large targets even if you set their CB to 0. AL boni applies in all circumstances after all so creating a situation where AL units specifically lose on the counter charge is currently difficult (seriously still looking for suggestions here, especially given there are some AL units which are designed to charge rather than brace).

    I think aiming to start with symmetric changes to charge performance to address the identified issue is safer. After infantry damage isn't producing absurdly positive trades we can look at differentiating performance within infantry.

    Ha! You managed to find my original lost post (somehow...).

    Anyway, I would say that it seems as though the issue being discussed here is less one of bug-fixing at this stage, and more one of how to ensure that the bug-fix doesn't simply revert the meta to having elite greatsword infantry (and honestly just most elite infantry in general) be an inefficient investment. I mean, has there EVER been a time where HE swordmasters (for example) were genuinely part of the meta (except against Dwarfs)? And I'm not talking about swordmaster rushes, but about them simply being a unit 1 or 2 of which you would see used fairly regularly in a variety of competitive builds...

    GW infantry generally lack versatility and utility; they need something extra given to them, and I think having a seriously damaging counter-charge vs cav is how they get it (+ maybe as a result being even more devastating vs chaff infantry than they already are; I don't see this as too much of a problem in principle due to the sheer quantity of chaff that certain factions can bring pretty much unpunished).


    You would then have (very roughly):

    Elite greatweapon infantry being: excellent vs other infantry, decent vs cav (and maybe certain Single Entitites) IF they get the counter-charge, weak to elite cav if not countercharging them, weak to ranged (+some spells, flyers, kite builds etc.)

    Elite spears/halberds being: weak/inefficient vs other infantry (but able to hold unless it's elite GW), excellent vs cav and SE, weak to ranged (+some spells, flyers, kite builds etc.)

    Elite cavalry being: very strong vs low- and mid-tier infantry + non- counter-charging elite greatweapon infantry, closely matched with elite GW infantry IF they counter-charge, weak against elite spears/halberds (+some spells, kite builds etc., although their mobility can offset quite a bit of this)


    Obviously much MUCH easier said (or written) than done. But I feel that something along these lines needs to be done. This way every elite (non-SE) close combat unit-type has multiple genuine uses offset by multiple genuine weaknesses. For too long too many elite GW infantry have been giving your opponent a 'heads-I-win-tails-you-lose' situation if you take them.
  • Spellbound1875#4610Spellbound1875#4610 Registered Users Posts: 2,047
    WNDS said:

    [Is this forum always going to swallow my posts every other time I make an edit to them, only to regurgitate it later in the form of double- or triple-posts? :p ]

    Yeah it does that. Quite annoying.

    Anyway, I would say that it seems as though the issue being discussed here is less one of bug-fixing at this stage, and more one of how to ensure that the bug-fix doesn't simply revert the meta to having elite greatsword infantry (and honestly just most elite infantry in general) be an inefficient investment. I mean, has there EVER been a time where HE swordmasters (for example) were genuinely part of the meta (except against Dwarfs)? And I'm not talking about swordmaster rushes, but about them simply being a unit 1 or 2 of which you would see used fairly regularly in a variety of competitive builds...


    Given the number of people here who seem resistant to changes designed to improve cavalry trading I think it's still a live topic of discussion. However if we do want to look forward to balancing infantry after the bug is dealt with we need to ask different questions. Swordmasters being uncommon doesn't make all infantry bad after all. Post T&T but pre Rakarth mid tier and elite halberds were having a resurgence, and mid tier units like Silverin Guard had been regularly seeing some play in spite of cheaper alternatives being available.

    What made GWs different? Well in a word, there were no good targets in the meta. Pre bugfix GWs were having to do a lot of their damage in sustained combat since they were missing around 60% of their charge damage (which the units were supposed to be balanced around). Since the best units to fight in sustained combat were other infantry and at best people were bringing a couple of mid-tier infantry options GW were almost always overkill in terms of cost. In some match ups a single elite infantry unit could cost more than the entire infantry core of your opponent.

    This also highlighted the issue of HP concentration. Put simply, the HP gain even when accounting for armor (and often missile block) just isn't large enough for elite infantry cost wise. While MA, MD, and CB could in theory make this up in melee combat this makes elite infantry exceptionally vulnerable to magic, artillery and missiles who can rob a unit of their combat efficacy even if high leadership kept the unit fighting to the last man. Often just swamping elite infantry with chaff to tire them out is more effective than trying to bring an expensive specialty unit to counter elite infantry.

    This finally hits the biggest issue for elite infantry which is that damage value being such an important metric in the game just screws them as a unit class. And I don't mean that they often deal huge amounts of damage relative to the paltry value they earn, I mean that army losses decides a game is over based on damage value meaning situations where if the infantry just stood and fought they'd win a battle are instead deemed losses because elite infantry bleed value way too easily for their cost. There are a lot (A LOT) of other factors that make army losses a bad system as currently implemented, but for infantry it's basically the fact that they have too little value to anchor (army losses triggers at a ratio of 2.6x greater value and a unit of half health elite infantry doesn't even count of 1000 making this trivially easy to achieve with shock damage), and they lose value faster than they lose combat effectiveness since army losses doesn't consider remaining entities only remaining health. As such they can often be safely ignored to force a win in multiplayer, which makes them a very sketchy investment (this goes for all elite infantry). One way to address this without fundamentally altering army losses would be to have infantry lose have some of their value held in percent of entities remaining rather than simply health. Personally I think more should be done, but a simple change like this would hugely improve the usability of elite infantry in multiplayer.

    So the meta was unfavorable for GWs, but if halberds were coming back in maybe given time GW would have become more popular without the bug fix? I doubt it. GWs also suffered from having very, very thin margins for positive trading because they paid far more defensively than they were getting offensively. From a value perspective you need armor values of ~75 for AP to be producing slightly positive trades, and for some factions that means there are literally 0 infantry targets that make great swords better than a sword and board option. Essentially GW were just lighting money on fire in most circumstances when taking a damage value perspective.

    However even if we nerf all infantry CB across the board on the current patch we shouldn't worry too much about GWs. After all they were the class of infantry balanced explicitly around high charge damage and they were losing ~60% of their charge damage. The fact that they were underperforming with that context makes perfect sense. GWs will actually now benefit from a meaningfully higher amount of damage on the charge regardless of target since their higher WS and CB will now result in a meaningful damage lead off of the charge. I might actually do some tests to see if the armor value has shifted significantly, though I imagine the fact that all infantry are benefiting from the bug fix will depress the difference a bit. Without knowing exactly what ratio of entities in a unit attack on the charge it's very difficult to compare unit performance.


    You would then have (very roughly):

    Elite greatweapon infantry being: excellent vs other infantry, decent vs cav (and maybe certain Single Entitites) IF they get the counter-charge, weak to elite cav if not countercharging them, weak to ranged (+some spells, flyers, kite builds etc.)

    Elite spears/halberds being: weak/inefficient vs other infantry (but able to hold unless it's elite GW), excellent vs cav and SE, weak to ranged (+some spells, flyers, kite builds etc.)

    Elite cavalry being: very strong vs low- and mid-tier infantry + non- counter-charging elite greatweapon infantry, closely matched with elite GW infantry IF they counter-charge, weak against elite spears/halberds (+some spells, kite builds etc., although their mobility can offset quite a bit of this)


    This is as far as I can tell the intended balance paradigm (though the weakness to range section isn't quite so cut and dry) and the GSK bug was making it very difficult to balance around that. Now that the bug is fixed the big issue is just that CB's were bloated to compensate for the fact that ~60% of infantry charge damage was just disappearing. Bring that in line and you'd largely have what you describe here (depending on cost of course). Biggest issue going forward is how to handle AL boni, since the needs of braced units (high sustained damage boost) and the needs of charge units (lower damage boost since a greater number of attacks are being made) are diametrically opposed.

    I couldn't help but notice bracing isn't really a consideration in your balance paradigm. I think that's probably more reflective of CA's process so far than would be ideal. Right now a lot of discussion is focused on offensive output because players rightly recognize that preserving hp for models is of questionable merit. I think reducing charge damage to make braced trades more cost efficient than counter charging would go a long way to making bracing seem meaningful but I do think addressing army losses and ranged damage sources may be necessary to allow for defensive measures to be tactically valid.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    In 1.10.2 infantry gw were already decent to good vs cav. I used them all the time as damage dealers to heavy cav.

    The idea that gw infantry was being abused by cavalry is simply incorrect. For the cost, they did what you expect and paid for themselves while also denying area.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377
    A big unknown for large/infantry balance is going to be what type of behaviour does capture points etc incentivize in game 3. As well as things like what type of camera settings etc are going to be available in game 3.

    Currently when using debug camera (as most high level players do AFAIK) it allows you to zoom way out and lets you keep the whole map in view while you play. This makes microing full mobility/cyclecharging cavalry & chariots far more manageable than it would be if the map was anchored at a lower point and players were unable to zoom further out. This would require you to have to move the camera sideways and jump between different views of combat more consistently. So if debug camera wasn't available in MP, then map movement & map awareness would become a more valuable micro skill as opposed to something that is barely relevant currently.

    So if debug camera were removed from MP then it will become harder to take mass mobility and be effective with it. If the addition of capture points also mean that infantry with CDvL can now generate value on their own without requiring a ranged unit behind them to put in the damage, combined with the added micro required from more lateral map movement being required as well as potentially some changes like the potential addition of Fog of War, then the higher performance of Cavalry/chariots/etc would be justified.

    It is quite tough to identify where the interaction should be balanced in a vacuum for this type of reason. If game 3 were to eliminate the ability of the player to use debug camera (which isn't unthinkable as there are balancing/gameplay implications of being able to use different camera types especially if managing and contesting different capture points is a relevant skill metric in Domination mode) the units designed to cycle charge would likely need to be a bit tankier on balance as players will need to be jumping around different points of the map in order to manage their forces.

    In general it is quite interesting to think about where micro should be prioritised in terms of design. From a gameplay perspective, Is it better to have debug camera be the norm and cyclecharging being relatively difficult and require consistent supervision to do effectively? Or is it better to have more limited vision restrictions and players need to have better "camera micro/map awareness" but cyclecharging is relatively easier?

    Once we start to get a look at some of the potential changes for game 3 (e.g. Domination mode, camera settings, hotkeys etc) it will be easier to gauge what a reasonably balanced interaction between unit classes looks like. As is we are all flying blind without knowing how other changes may impact the relative effectiveness of different army builds/playstyles in game 3.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,357

    A big unknown for large/infantry balance is going to be what type of behaviour does capture points etc incentivize in game 3. As well as things like what type of camera settings etc are going to be available in game 3.

    Currently when using debug camera (as most high level players do AFAIK) it allows you to zoom way out and lets you keep the whole map in view while you play. This makes microing full mobility/cyclecharging cavalry & chariots far more manageable than it would be if the map was anchored at a lower point and players were unable to zoom further out. This would require you to have to move the camera sideways and jump between different views of combat more consistently. So if debug camera wasn't available in MP, then map movement & map awareness would become a more valuable micro skill as opposed to something that is barely relevant currently.

    So if debug camera were removed from MP then it will become harder to take mass mobility and be effective with it. If the addition of capture points also mean that infantry with CDvL can now generate value on their own without requiring a ranged unit behind them to put in the damage, combined with the added micro required from more lateral map movement being required as well as potentially some changes like the potential addition of Fog of War, then the higher performance of Cavalry/chariots/etc would be justified.

    It is quite tough to identify where the interaction should be balanced in a vacuum for this type of reason. If game 3 were to eliminate the ability of the player to use debug camera (which isn't unthinkable as there are balancing/gameplay implications of being able to use different camera types especially if managing and contesting different capture points is a relevant skill metric in Domination mode) the units designed to cycle charge would likely need to be a bit tankier on balance as players will need to be jumping around different points of the map in order to manage their forces.

    In general it is quite interesting to think about where micro should be prioritised in terms of design. From a gameplay perspective, Is it better to have debug camera be the norm and cyclecharging being relatively difficult and require consistent supervision to do effectively? Or is it better to have more limited vision restrictions and players need to have better "camera micro/map awareness" but cyclecharging is relatively easier?

    Once we start to get a look at some of the potential changes for game 3 (e.g. Domination mode, camera settings, hotkeys etc) it will be easier to gauge what a reasonably balanced interaction between unit classes looks like. As is we are all flying blind without knowing how other changes may impact the relative effectiveness of different army builds/playstyles in game 3.

    Lots of top players who play mobility heavy builds currently dont use debug camera.

    So long as you can see the whole map from any camera what you say will have no impact.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 962
    I don’t think zooming all the way out all the time is good as visually seeing combat can be important for keeping track of animations. Like if your lord suddenly does lunge animation and gets surrounded you’ll want to try and get them out fast. Being able to see what units are actually doing is very much part of playing well.
  • WarpDriver#9169WarpDriver#9169 Registered Users Posts: 118
    De-bug camera is a very big deal, generally, this is not said enough, it transformed my play competitively. Yeah, you do have to zoom in frequently, and on a side note, icons really do get in the way too much. Hopefully something is done about icons, made slightly opaque or something in game 3.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,357

    De-bug camera is a very big deal, generally, this is not said enough, it transformed my play competitively. Yeah, you do have to zoom in frequently, and on a side note, icons really do get in the way too much. Hopefully something is done about icons, made slightly opaque or something in game 3.

    Can you explain why Soothslayer does not use it and has been a very dominant force in competitive play for a very long time?
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,357
    i dont see why it be any benefit for game play the ability of players to control the camera faster than their opponents
  • mattattack007mattattack007 Registered Users Posts: 10
    I disagree but I agree that charging into a full HP unit should not wipe out the unit. Its very hard to code the psychological impact cavalry has on infantry. A line of swordsmen standing against a cav charge would probably break if undertrained and be **** themselves in line if they were well trained. Getting hit by a horse will kill you. Period. There is no counterattack. You just hope you live. Knights were taken down by infantry after their charge was stopped and they were pulled from their horse. So a full unit of cav charging into a group of swordsmen will absolutely wreck them. I think what cav needs is to be very strong with a hard counter. Have cav wreck unbraced infantry but have cav also be wrecked by braced spears and if left in combat. A knight at a charge is unstoppable, a knight at rest can be killed. So make cav charges stronger and make cav themselves squishier. That way cycle charging cav can be devastating, like it was in real life, but getting a unit caught out gets them killed.

  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565

    I disagree but I agree that charging into a full HP unit should not wipe out the unit. Its very hard to code the psychological impact cavalry has on infantry. A line of swordsmen standing against a cav charge would probably break if undertrained and be **** themselves in line if they were well trained. Getting hit by a horse will kill you. Period. There is no counterattack. You just hope you live. Knights were taken down by infantry after their charge was stopped and they were pulled from their horse. So a full unit of cav charging into a group of swordsmen will absolutely wreck them. I think what cav needs is to be very strong with a hard counter. Have cav wreck unbraced infantry but have cav also be wrecked by braced spears and if left in combat. A knight at a charge is unstoppable, a knight at rest can be killed. So make cav charges stronger and make cav themselves squishier. That way cycle charging cav can be devastating, like it was in real life, but getting a unit caught out gets them killed.

    cav were killed like that because they didn't charge into the front of the lines, a man can survive getting hit by a horse, a horse cannot keep running through a formation of men like that, it would be forced to stop, and the horse behind them would be stopped, killing them after the horse behind them hits them, or at least taking them out of the fight, and a tattered unit would run, but a unit still in formation, and completely fresh wouldn't run, particularly well disciplined state troops, peasent mob maybe, even skaven slaves are brave enough with numbers, when your world literally acknowledges that there are green gorilla sized men that want to kill and eat your and you've seen people that lost limbs or loved ones to them, it will be easier to resist things like cav charges, hell either your army or there army is likely deploying some amazing warmachine that slaughters people, or a monster that you can see from across the battlefield, a horse is far easier to handle then in our world, and men held against horses countless times
  • ZeblaskyZeblasky Registered Users Posts: 550
    Oh great, this again. Well, I do hope we will find a middle ground between mass Grail Knights - Peasant Archers - 5 Peasant mobs and Mass Chaos Warriors GW at least when the game 4 rolls out.
  • FrookFrook Registered Users Posts: 278
    It is better stated that heavy cavalry of a price point should not trade evenly but rather with disadvantage and that disadvantage only growing larger the more they stay in combat, if they charge frontally against a similar price point heavy infantry.
Sign In or Register to comment.