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.
obelixthegreat wrote: »
Disagree. Melee is bad and shock cav is good;)
Besides that the hunic cav roster, in general, suffers from the fact that their mass is mostly very light, light and medium. High tier melee cav is widely overpriced.
Also their cav archers have a hard time because charge speed is the same for all cavalary in the game so they can be caught quite easily if your atention is not focused on them all the time. They got a bit better with patch 2 because some units received the parthian shot ability. They also have a lot of ammo.
Still, its very hard to make the hunic horse archers cost effective at the end of a game and with the current meta you are better of by bringing shock cav suported by good inf and cheap foot archers.
memccann wrote: »
So you disagree with me and then say you would bring shock cav? I'm talking about the hun roster here and if you can tell that you don't play much because shock cav is of equal importance to melee cav now. People use Sassanids and Huns fairly regularly and often win.
jamreal18 wrote: »
What can you say about Huns' cavalry?
Pamina wrote: »
Humans can barely understand second degree humour before 15 anyway.
Belialxv wrote: »
CA doesnt know how to give a proper strategical use to light units and the Huns are paying the price.
WalrusJones wrote: »
Well, I would argue that they did, but they threw it away.
Charge distance is triple that of other total war titles, its almost as if CA did everything they could to prevent the AI from kiting with unsupported missile cavalry.
Of course, this is almost certainly campaign focused: The main antagonists depend on horse archers, if you couldn't engage them at all, the campaign would in theory suffer.
Belialxv wrote: »
Or it would force sp people to use their brain... which they dont excel at.