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

Issues with the upcoming balance changes (and the fundamental issue they fail to address)

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
There are a number of upcoming changes to the game in the upcoming patch which seem to be quite detrimental to balance and very much a problem with regards to the enjoyability and depth of battles, especially in Records mode.

These changes are:-
  1. Nerf to crossbow range vis a vis bows
  2. Addition of a number of bonuses vs certain units; especially the anti cavalry bonuses being added to bows and sword (yellow) cavalry
  3. A substantial increase to the speed of cavalry
Now, one can see the reasoning behind these changes somewhat in that they seem to be geared towards addressing 3 issues:-
  1. The excessive power of ranged units in the later parts of the game against all units
  2. Crossbows being somewhat better all round than bows
  3. Yellow cavalry losing out to red line cavalry which is often seen as all round better in the later game
Of these, perhaps issue 3 is the most serious in that it really isn't an issue at all and is already addressed within the existing balance through the use of ranged units like crossbows (which is what powerful cavalry was historically countered with). Yellow line cavalry are already balanced overall by their greater staying power in normal combat and their ranged block which, unlike shock cavalry, allows them to stay in the fight and not be slaughtered by ranged fire.

Therefore, the addition of a bonus vs cav to sword cavalry and greater speed overall to cavalry seems to achieve little more than creating a balance issue by breaking the extant and working balance between infantry and cavalry and substituting it with the sort of balance that has already been an issue in previous games (the see-sawing of sword cav between OP and not being used in previous games, and the high speed cavalry dodging from Warhammer).

The issue with ranged is also something that won't really be addressed by the changes. While the reduction to crossbow arcs of fire may be a good change overall, the range reduction serves little purpose apart from nerfing infantry vis a vis cavalry as a whole by taking away the offensive power of infantry and permitting cavalry to run circles around them with less crossbow range and more cavalry speed. This also raises the substantial issue of the crossbows now being in a position where they lose their better defined niche in favour of being pushed into the niche for bow equipped units.



The elephant in the room


The issue at the core of the seeming power of ranged has, ultimately not been addressed; to wit: the massive bonuses to stats that these units (and indeed, all units) receive from characters. Unfortunately, the elephant in the room for balancing units isn't the units themselves (which are already pretty decently balanced), but rather the characters, which bring to the table massive bonuses to stats such as ranged damage and rate of fire.

Therefore, until the elephant in the room (massive Character bonuses ) with regards to balancing isn't worked out, the balance changes will only serve to make the gameplay, especially in records mode, less satisfying and more arcadey; without actually addressing the fundamental issue that makes these otherwise balanced units unbalanced. Especially since a number of these changes simply seem to be bringing issues from the balancing of other TW games into the fundamentally better balancing of 3K.

Comments

  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,320
    edited March 9
    To be fair the biggest Elephant in the room is that people are trying to defend how overbearing crossbows were and they are just scared of seeing them nerfed because it will make them not the best choice in all scenarios hence actually asking them to use their brain with their army composition...

    I'm going to give you a spoiler : They are still really strong. You'll get used to 200 range.



    ... also anyways I will agree that the biggest problem with ranged units balance is how Cunning increases ammunition for the whole retinue (which is OP)
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,209
    Sorry, but the nerfs to xbows were absolutely justified. Ranged units as a whole are too strong in this game and they need nerfing throughout.

  • _aassassinoo__aassassinoo_ Registered Users Posts: 134
    Rewan said:

    To be fair the biggest Elephant in the room is that people are trying to defend how overbearing crossbows were and they are just scared of seeing them nerfed because it will make them not the best choice in all scenarios hence actually asking them to use their brain with their army composition...

    I'm going to give you a spoiler : They are still really strong. You'll get used to 200 range.



    ... also anyways I will agree that the biggest problem with ranged units balance is how Cunning increases ammunition for the whole retinue (which is OP)

    I agree with you.
    They just want an easy game not a balanced game.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,789
    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 2,872
    edited March 9
    I would have preferred for xbows to remain at 250, but I still got my 250 onyx dragons so archer militia with fire arrows will do the job before then. I'd also have to play around with the new xbows to see if they're still worth it. I would very much prefer all range units and romance generals skills to get huge buffs because they are the most fun to play with.
  • shattishatti Registered Users Posts: 482
    edited March 9
    my first thread in the 3k forum was complaining about large range of xbows

    it was toooo much after attila & warhammer and too obvious, specially with the blue lines effect

    i support this 100%, nerf the hell out of them
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Registered Users Posts: 2,505
    Weren't crossbows like the primary power of the Qin though? being able to destroy enemies with superior firepower, rather than tough infantry and formations. I mean.. if they unified China and formed the first Chinese Empire with just Crossbows... Why can't we use the same tactic in Three Kingdoms.

    My issue with nerfing crossbows is that it again... turns a realistic mechanic into an unrealistic mechanic. If your only wearing wood/leather and a little bit of Iron... and a crossbow bolt pierces through that, your dead. They should be OP, that's why they were being used! if a crossbow unit with 100% accuracy shot all bolts directly at an enemy unit, they should all die or be seriously wounded. (unless the have shields) The same can be said with Archers... though not as powerful (against armour) bows are incredibly powerful against unarmoured foes (Militia boys).

    Besides that, I have never actually seen a unit of crossbows wipe out a unit of equal-tier melee infantry, before they get into melee distance. Even Prince Liu Chong's Crossbow unit (with spears) doesn't usually wipe out an enemy unit before it gets into melee range (unless its a cowardly militia/peasant unit).
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,209

    Weren't crossbows like the primary power of the Qin though? being able to destroy enemies with superior firepower, rather than tough infantry and formations. I mean.. if they unified China and formed the first Chinese Empire with just Crossbows... Why can't we use the same tactic in Three Kingdoms.

    My issue with nerfing crossbows is that it again... turns a realistic mechanic into an unrealistic mechanic. If your only wearing wood/leather and a little bit of Iron... and a crossbow bolt pierces through that, your dead. They should be OP, that's why they were being used! if a crossbow unit with 100% accuracy shot all bolts directly at an enemy unit, they should all die or be seriously wounded. (unless the have shields) The same can be said with Archers... though not as powerful (against armour) bows are incredibly powerful against unarmoured foes (Militia boys).

    Besides that, I have never actually seen a unit of crossbows wipe out a unit of equal-tier melee infantry, before they get into melee distance. Even Prince Liu Chong's Crossbow unit (with spears) doesn't usually wipe out an enemy unit before it gets into melee range (unless its a cowardly militia/peasant unit).

    No, the power of the Qin was to be the first faction that used massed armies of infantry with standardised equipment while everyone else was still bothering with small armies made up of mostly Nobles.

    Besides, OP crossbows were bad for gameplay by skewing the balance so heavily towards ranged troops.

    This needs to be absolutely nerfed into the ground.

  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Registered Users Posts: 2,505

    Weren't crossbows like the primary power of the Qin though? being able to destroy enemies with superior firepower, rather than tough infantry and formations. I mean.. if they unified China and formed the first Chinese Empire with just Crossbows... Why can't we use the same tactic in Three Kingdoms.

    My issue with nerfing crossbows is that it again... turns a realistic mechanic into an unrealistic mechanic. If your only wearing wood/leather and a little bit of Iron... and a crossbow bolt pierces through that, your dead. They should be OP, that's why they were being used! if a crossbow unit with 100% accuracy shot all bolts directly at an enemy unit, they should all die or be seriously wounded. (unless the have shields) The same can be said with Archers... though not as powerful (against armour) bows are incredibly powerful against unarmoured foes (Militia boys).

    Besides that, I have never actually seen a unit of crossbows wipe out a unit of equal-tier melee infantry, before they get into melee distance. Even Prince Liu Chong's Crossbow unit (with spears) doesn't usually wipe out an enemy unit before it gets into melee range (unless its a cowardly militia/peasant unit).

    No, the power of the Qin was to be the first faction that used massed armies of infantry with standardised equipment while everyone else was still bothering with small armies made up of mostly Nobles.

    Besides, OP crossbows were bad for gameplay by skewing the balance so heavily towards ranged troops.

    This needs to be absolutely nerfed into the ground.

    Oh... nevermind then :P
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,935
    I also support the change to crossbows. Now they seem more distinct from bows.

    I am less sure about cavalry. I support the increase to cavalry speed. I have always modded my game to have faster cavalry so of course I think it necessary. Although I think my main issue with cavalry speed was the fall off due to fatigue which sometimes made it slower than running or charging infantry which is ludicrous. I have to see how this is affected now.

    The increased damage ranged units do to cavalry is clearly to complement the increased speed since the cavalry can close the distance much faster. It makes sense to me, as long as it is not too excessive. If it makes shielded cavalry more useful, even better.

    The yellow vs red cavalry part is something I have to wait and see.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276

    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.

    Thing is, the actual DPS on crossbows is actually lower than that on normal bows. They have slightly better AP damage, if your idea of better AP is 1.5 more AP damage per one minute of continuous fire (bows do 300 AP damage per minute; crossbows do 301.5). When we look at damage over time, bows handily beat crossbows and emerge as a clearly superior damage dealer.

    So, with these changes we have a slower firing, less damaging weapon whose one actual advantage, one which gave it a well defined role and niche vis a vis bows, is now gone.

    This is what I meant by the characters being the elephant in the room, The units are pretty balanced on their own; but become less so when you slap on 40% more ranged damage, 10% more AP damage and 10% more RoF. What needs nerfing aren't the units; it's the downright massive bonuses that they receive from character skills and abilities.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,201
    edited March 11

    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.

    Strategists give such bonuses because they don't do anything else. I think CA just went a bit far with that idea... I would like to see Strategists give more buffs to other colours characters but less buff to ranged/water and have a bit of capability fighting in melee vs normal units (still slayed by almost any other characters).

    Having 1 strategist per army that strengthens all the other commanders and a couple of overall army buffs +some utility vs regular units at the price of far lower buffs to ranged in ammo and lethality.

    Army buffs- formations, synergy buffs (+2 morale per colour in the army, +2 to fellow character resilience, +15% radius for all character effects, etc

    1. Strategists
    2. Commanders
    3. Sentinels
    4. Vanguard
    5. Champion

    Retinue buffs- formations, +running speed, disciplined, unit abilities like 'stand firm to repel charge' passive buffs in character radius, more deployable defences, etc

    1. Commanders
    2. Sentinels
    3. Vanguard
    4. Strategists
    5. Champions

    Campaign map buffs- increased replenishment, increased line of sight, increased movement, +ambush chance, -ambush surprise chance, etc

    1. Vanguard
    2. Strategists
    3. Sentinels
    4. Commanders
    5. Champions

    Personal buffs- increased HP, increased charge damage, wider hit radius, greater resilience, more likeability in character relations, inspire fear, etc

    1.Champions
    2.Vanguards
    3. Sentinels
    4. Commanders
    5. Strategists

    Recruitment buffs- lower recruitment cost, decreased muster time, cheaper deployment, increased chance of recruiting defeated generals

    1. Champions
    2. Sentinels
    3. Commanders
    4. Strategists
    5. Vanguards

    Basically having Champion be the better duelist compared to Vanguard but also be the best vs regular units making it a more difficult choice to spend time duelling or stomping on units. Along with this have gear matter a bit less... it seems stupid that getting lucky early in the game by capturing a character or having an unhappy legendary join your faction makes such a huge difference guaranteeing nearly every duel is a win for the next 50+ turns.

    The choice CA tried to force was Vanguard as a duelist beating other character types matters far less than gear a character is equipped with. Ideally, a strategist that levels up his single personal defence skill and has a legendary weapon has a nearly equal chance in a duel vs the same level normal Champion (legendary Champion would win) with basic gear while being defeated by almost every other combination of character +gear/level.

    I see Vanguard more as the head scout and enforcer in an army while Champions are the most skilled in fighting and are popular but lack most other command abilities.

    Post edited by Ichon on
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,209
    Ichon said:

    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.

    Strategists give such bonuses because they don't do anything else.

    Well, besides giving formations for all units. And rendering supplies meaningless. And enabling the use of artillery. And let's nor forget how enormously overpowered ranged units in this game are.

    They actually do way too much. They need hard nerfs.

  • crazymissile_88crazymissile_88 Registered Users Posts: 6
    I can't agree with the idea that just because an unit is effective, it needs a hard nerf. Cavalry units can easily rack up 3-4 times the number of kills crossbow units do in a large battle. Does this mean we should also nerf cavalry charges as well? Just so that ji militia and sabre milita can rule the battlefiled? There should be other ways to balance units than nerfing every outstanding strength.

    Nerfing the crossbow range and depriving them of arc firing are like a double whammy, severely limiting what they may hit. If your crossbows are standing behind your infantry, they won't be able to hit an engaged enemy on level ground. It will also make them way less useful than arcthers in sieges.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,209
    edited March 11

    I can't agree with the idea that just because an unit is effective, it needs a hard nerf. Cavalry units can easily rack up 3-4 times the number of kills crossbow units do in a large battle. Does this mean we should also nerf cavalry charges as well? Just so that ji militia and sabre milita can rule the battlefiled? There should be other ways to balance units than nerfing every outstanding strength.

    Nerfing the crossbow range and depriving them of arc firing are like a double whammy, severely limiting what they may hit. If your crossbows are standing behind your infantry, they won't be able to hit an engaged enemy on level ground. It will also make them way less useful than arcthers in sieges.

    Cry me a river. Infantry must always be the king of the battlefield. Want shooty armies? Play Napoleon or Empire.

  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,745

    Ichon said:

    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.

    Strategists give such bonuses because they don't do anything else.

    Well, besides giving formations for all units. And rendering supplies meaningless. And enabling the use of artillery. And let's nor forget how enormously overpowered ranged units in this game are.

    They actually do way too much. They need hard nerfs.
    No thank you with the exception of the supply bonuses. It’s annoying to see armies wondering around China far away from their home base
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,209
    LESAMA said:

    Ichon said:

    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.

    Strategists give such bonuses because they don't do anything else.

    Well, besides giving formations for all units. And rendering supplies meaningless. And enabling the use of artillery. And let's nor forget how enormously overpowered ranged units in this game are.

    They actually do way too much. They need hard nerfs.
    No thank you with the exception of the supply bonuses. It’s annoying to see armies wondering around China far away from their home base
    All of that needs to be nerfed. Formations are often vital and should not be tied to mostly one type of hero. Ranged units needs absolute nerfing. Their machinegun like firing rate needs to be restricted considerably.

  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,745

    LESAMA said:

    Ichon said:

    Crossbows definitely needed some tweaking. Yes, they're meant to be very powerful in this setting, and I agree that they should be in the game too. But they were essentially wiping out half of the enemy army in every battle, and that needed to be addressed for the sake of game balance.
    And it's not like they were so nerfed into the ground that they're going to be shooting blades of grass now; their range was reduced and their arc of fire was changed - you just need to use your head when using them now, taking into account their positioning and line-of-sight. Previously you could just plonk them behind a wall of Spear Guards and sit back while they fired at practically 80 degrees into the air and were still landing all their shots.

    Strategists and their crazy buffs to ammunition; yes, that definitely needs to be looked at.

    Changes to Earth (Yellow) Cavalry... I'm not sure what to make of. They definitely needed something to make them more useful anyway. Not sure if this inherent bonus vs shock cavalry is the way to do it, but we'll have to try it out for ourselves first.

    And besides, this is all from an early-access build; half of this stuff could be changed again or entirely reverted when the patch goes live.

    Strategists give such bonuses because they don't do anything else.

    Well, besides giving formations for all units. And rendering supplies meaningless. And enabling the use of artillery. And let's nor forget how enormously overpowered ranged units in this game are.

    They actually do way too much. They need hard nerfs.
    No thank you with the exception of the supply bonuses. It’s annoying to see armies wondering around China far away from their home base
    All of that needs to be nerfed. Formations are often vital and should not be tied to mostly one type of hero. Ranged units needs absolute nerfing. Their machinegun like firing rate needs to be restricted considerably.
    Formations are tight to 2 types of heroes, strategists and commanders.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,745
    On ranged units we can agree although I think that there still should be a distinct difference between crossbows and archers. Both should excel in their own expertise.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,320
    Formations are tight to 2 types of heroes, strategists and commanders.


    Except Commanders need to lead to grant the formations.

    A remind of what i want :

    - Champions getting access to Circle and Hollowed Square at rank 3 and then Turtle, Spear Wall and Shield Wall (Spears) at rank 6

    - Sentinels getting access to Circle and Hollowed Square at rank 3, Spear Wall and Shield Wall (Swords/Axe) at rank 6.

    - Vanguard getting Wedge at rank 3 and Diamond at rank 6.

    - Commander would get every formation for themselves AND grant them to their army if they are leading (as it is right now)

    - Strategists would get every formation for the army in general because they are nerdy bookworms. (as it is right now)


    So low levels generals would still greatly enjoy a Strategist presence but high level generals would be more than capable of using their brain. Even if they are Vanguards...
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,320
    edited March 11
    Thing is, the actual DPS on crossbows is actually lower than that on normal bows. They have slightly better AP damage, if your idea of better AP is 1.5 more AP damage per one minute of continuous fire (bows do 300 AP damage per minute; crossbows do 301.5). When we look at damage over time, bows handily beat crossbows and emerge as a clearly superior damage dealer.


    While this is relatively true if you just look at the numbers I would like to raise two points which are obviously the reason i wanted a nerf to begin with.

    A- Numbers aren't everything.

    Experience actually gave a different results than what the number initially suggested.
    s a matter of fact i just ran a small test run with one Rapid Tiger infantry (32% Armor. No shield armor and no shield deflection. Pretty much Ji Infantry except Ji Infantry can get a bonus 10% Armor from Champs) running at an Archer/Crossbow unit standing behind a unit of Sabre Militia. (Their only buff was the Strategist increased regular damage so something that's negligeable, I believe that overall it just gives out 1 effective point of damage to archers)

    Archers : 27 kills (28 with last trickle)
    Crossbows : 30 kills (31 with last trickle)

    Overall, Crossbows did slightly more damage than Archers (around 2 to 3K so that's 2 to 3% of the total unit HP pool or something) against a unit with average armor. Which means that obviously they would outdamage Archers against units with even greater values. (since again AP dmg do not fall off while regular does as armor increase)

    That's already a clear sign they are outperforming. I was actually expecting Archers to "win" in this but that wasn't the case...


    B- Ranged vs Ranged duels.

    The prime reason I want(ed) CA to nerf Crossbows is that it made Ranged duels a nobrainer. Sure in theory the damage output of Archers is greater but what happens if their numbers is automatically reduced before they can actually fire because they are being outranged ?



    Answer : they loose. Since it's generally common to focus firepower on one unit to get a rout. So if it was a 6 Archers vs 6 Crossbows kind of situation I believe the margin would have been even greater.




    Take it as you want, Crossbows were outperforming. Perhaps CA should have buffed the range on Bows to 250 as well, but that would have not reduced the pressure on unshielded infantry. (which reducing the Crossbow range does)
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    Formations should not be tied to strategists or cormmanders but simply general level.
  • tuanphannhattuanphannhat Registered Users Posts: 53
    Kirkwald said:

    Formations should not be tied to strategists or cormmanders but simply general level.

    How's about their cunning? :D
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,745
    Kirkwald said:

    Formations should not be tied to strategists or cormmanders but simply general level.

    I like it being tied to different classes. No need to dumb this game down.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,789
    I also think that formations should not be tied solely to Strategists or Commanders. Strategists are already an essential part of any army, tying formations to them as well is just overkill in my opinion. Strategists need to have some of their abilities and uses spread out among the other classes.

    Commanders could also do with some further reworking to make them actually good at commanding armies. They should start by swapping the 'Intensity' skill on Commanders with the 'Reach' skill on Champions.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,201
    edited March 13
    Ichon said:



    Strategists give such bonuses because they don't do anything else.

    Well, besides giving formations for all units. And rendering supplies meaningless. And enabling the use of artillery. And let's nor forget how enormously overpowered ranged units in this game are.

    They actually do way too much. They need hard nerfs.

    The only thing Strategists do that is unique is the artillery unlock and a couple timed abilities. Everything else another type of Leader does too- just not as well.

    Also, that comment was directed at the Records mode where strategists are particularly useless.

    The rest of the quoted post did talk about how ranged had too many buffs but that isn't strategists fault alone- reforms and CA favouring a design that minimizes melee infantry in 3K based I think on historical accounts of the power of ranged weapons in this era of China- exaggerated accounts since every ranged unit had far more regular infantry accompanying it to protect it from cavalry and other infantry.
    LESAMA said:



    Formations are tight to 2 types of heroes, strategists and commanders.

    And some followers, equipment, and depending if you count always braced/charge reflect as a formation type.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,201
    edited March 13
    LESAMA said:



    Formations are tight to 2 types of heroes, strategists and commanders.

    Rewan said:

    Formations are tight to 2 types of heroes, strategists and commanders.


    Except Commanders need to lead to grant the formations.

    A remind of what i want :

    - Champions getting access to Circle and Hollowed Square at rank 3 and then Turtle, Spear Wall and Shield Wall (Spears) at rank 6

    - Sentinels getting access to Circle and Hollowed Square at rank 3, Spear Wall and Shield Wall (Swords/Axe) at rank 6.

    - Vanguard getting Wedge at rank 3 and Diamond at rank 6.

    - Commander would get every formation for themselves AND grant them to their army if they are leading (as it is right now)

    - Strategists would get every formation for the army in general because they are nerdy bookworms. (as it is right now)


    So low levels generals would still greatly enjoy a Strategist presence but high level generals would be more than capable of using their brain. Even if they are Vanguards...
    I think every type of general should get at least 1 formation to unlock but the premise that Commanders and Strategists have the most formations seems good especially if Vanguard role becomes more about being a scout and army enforcer because I find the secondary role of duellist the most useless in 3K because gear and abilities from other characters rule duels with only strategists being useless in duels when loaded with gear.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
Sign In or Register to comment.