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

Meta discussion #1 - Bracing, charging and counter-charging cavalry

13468912

Comments

  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 367
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    It’s an interesting side discussion about elite infantry and great weapon infantry. I will say that with their excellent mobility and high stats and charge bonus I’ve found hammerers to be quite good Vs even mauraders gw, a unit basically designed to trade up Vs them. This gives me the general sense that higher tier infantry are able to punch above their price point separate from the exact design of the units in question. I do find if you can avoid being shot, magicked, or outflanked, that elite inf can generate good returns against chaff inf.

    So the interesting issue there is not entirely one of performance but about efficiency. Cost is usually the best indicator of unit performance within a class period, with expensive units winning out fairly decisive if their is around a 200+ cost difference. The issue is in terms of value accrued there is a diminishing return both from a concentration of value and a lack of decent targets. Elite infantry aren't unplayably bad (or anywhere near frankly) just risky. They'll win fights but you could often have won the same fight with two or three cheaper units while being more resistant to missiles, artillery, monsters, lords, cav, spells, etc. The fact that 2 cheaper units often perform better while costing less make elite infantry harder to justify though often as a surprise pick they can be very effective especially when properly screened.

    It's easy to imagine a scenario where a MGW gets around 800 gold value. It's almost impossible to find one where a hammerer gets 2200. I'd argue part of that is how easy it is for cheap units to trade up with the charge.

    I'm tempted to argue that the way the gold value system is currently in place it is effectively impossible for elite infantry to trade up even when they are a lynch pin of the army. I watched replay a while back where a swordmaster core did literally more than a third of the armies total damage, killing between 6 and 8 infantry units essentially unaided. None of them paid for themselves and they took a substantial amount of damage from non-infantry sources. The only one that came close to paying for itself got most of its value from bullying a foot lord.

    Obviously this is anecdotal but I think it's reflective of some of the issues expensive units face in multiplayer specifically. It's very easy to overinvest and find yourself struggling to utilize some of the expensive assets you brought to a match when using elite units.
    So then why do I take hammerers instead of twice as many dwarf warriors gw? I’m generally a huge fan of wide builds but I really have found that the ability to win decisively and then move on to the next is worth more than the initial charge of two units. Maybe it’s a crowding dynamic? But I find gaping holes in your lines that then get exploited is problematic over and above the theoretical value of piling multiple dwarf chaff units against each elite chaos warrior gw (because in practice that is hard to do).
    So in answer to your posts it's definitely not a solved problem and my thoughts on the matter certainly aren't gospel. I've just noticed that in many cases wider with either magic, ranged, or mobile damage sources can be more effective in games.

    As for the comparison between hammerers and dwarf warrior GW I'd argue you'd never take dwarf warrior GW because they are in a really rough spot. They have atrocious MA, and they have a pretty weak CB so on the charge they often still have mediocre accuracy. A normal DW and a Thunderer run you about the same as a hammerer and are arguably a better counter against chariots, monsters, and great weapon units than paying for a hammerer.

    Obviously this isn't always going to work out and sometimes picking an unexpected unit even if theoretically suboptimal works well simply because your opponent isn't prepared to deal with it. I'm a big fan of Bestigors for this reason, since I find my opponents aren't prepared for ap shock infantry. I wouldn't say Bestigors are a good unit by stats but they can occasionally win games since my opponent didn't select the tools for dealing with them.

    I'll have to check out your battle then! I would say VC is a match up where I personally find success with Elite infantry. Biggest threat is the mortis engine and spells both of which you can play around fairly well. Flip side is if you fail to deal with those with a tool other than elite infantry you get drained down. Still you can plan around that fairly well which is harder to do against more flexible factions. I would be comfortable saying that's above average performance for hammerers though. XD

    As to the CWGW vs MGW, I'm not sure the CWGW get their payoff more consistently. You need to effectively double your value with the CWGWs and the main advantage you gain is the armor resistance (12 MD isn't nothing either but if you want melee sustain normal CW tend to do better or even against enemies with sub 90 armor, in addition to having shields). So I guess the trade off is CWGW are less likely to be routed before getting that first charge, which against heavy ranged factions is not nothing. However in terms of overall damage the jump from marauder to CW is less than exciting. It is a 12 damage boost per model before armor reduction, which is about 120ish per 30 attacks on the charge. Not nothing but also not a huge difference.

    So if the question is one of variance you could make an argument either way. I still think it's strange that going cheap potentially doubles your damage output for what is essentially a 75% reduction to non ap damage. Granted you'd need to consider this within the context of an army and a match up so it isn't easy to provide a clean answer. I personally think cheap infantry are a little too efficient and that mid and high tier could use a small boost but the game is overall in a decent place balance wise. While individual units might be in a bad place most unit classes see some use in some contexts.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,800
    Problem:
    There might be a point to be made that CB on infantry is a bit high. Generally AP cavalry has lower CB, but in general AP infantry have a higher CB than non-AP variety in most cases.


    Solution:
    I could see -4CB and +1MD+1MA on AP infantry. I wouldn't drop anything below 18 CB where Long Beards and White Lions reside unless it's a halberd.

    Also, more elite smaller unit sizes deserve high numbers to compensate for lack of bodies (Black Orcs, Chosen, Giant Slayers, etc), so I wouldn't try to get all the troops down to 18 CB. ~26 at 75 models, ~22 at 100 models and ~18 at 120 models on ultra should be pretty good.


    Outliers:
    Silverin Guard probably deserve a free +6 CB. This CB is inconsistently low for a mid tier spear.

    I would argue that Sisters of Slaughter should have the highest infantry CB in the game, because they don't do AP, they don't have anti-infantry/anti-large, and because they are elite as hell (1100g). So you could go in reverse and take -6MD and add +12 CB.

    To be honest, these are a really small changes but if it makes people happy I think we can come to some reasonable accommodation.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674
    It’s interesting so actually until they recently buffed them nobody took mauraders gw because they simply sucked. Now I find they have high payoff but still it’s not like a high length infantry line can engage all at once and while you wait for a super wide infantry force to fully engage half your units can already have died in the center to ranged or to superior units. Similarly I *love* light cav in large numbers for efficiency but the flip side is elite narrow cav often just win games with repeated rollovers of inferiority enemies one at a time.

    Re: dwarf warriors gw they got a cb buff and at 18 are not bad on the charge. But as your analysis implies they are really bad at trading up Vs superior tier units in the grind. The width is helpful but they tend to fight best Vs low md enemies.

    Even so if you prefer Longbeards gw (and some players do) that’s still wider than hammerers. But I find in practice I either prioritize width while accepting bad or neutral infantry trades or I prioritize positive net returns on the Melee fight, and if I want that I go hammerers for sure. Defending a smaller number of ranged units by actually winning the front line fight is now a viable tactic for dwarfs (becaus the hammerers also aren’t complete prey for mobile elements) which is cool.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674

    eumaies said:

    Spellbound I think you make a great point there about how cheap and charge bonus go together except you’re missing that in infantry fights charge bonus is less definitive. My chosen will mulch through inferior infantry cost effectively in spite of their modest charge bonus (relative to cav) because their stats dominate the stats of the chaff and most of an infantry fight still occurs in a protracted way. With cav it’s different because they have poor stats so they suffer the charge (when it lands) and also can’t sustain.

    Chosen are a statistical outlier when it comes to unit stats in total war even by cost. Shield chosen having 60 MD is nuts for infantry (which is what Chosen should be) but it makes them a really bad example when discussing unit efficiency. Chosen while exhausted have higher combat stats than most other infantry units in the game have while fresh, the fact that they can trade through enough cheap infantry to make their cost back is not indicative of any other units performance. In practice most expensive infantry have substantially higher MA, Armor, and leadership while receiving only modest increases to MD, health, and charge bonus.

    Having said that I would like to push back on the idea that the majority of an infantry fight takes place in a grind. Infantry often rout rather than fight to the death and infantry charges often can deal between 10% and 20% of an opposing infantry units health. The only reason the percentage is so low is cheap infantry have more bodies which slows combat through a hidden buffer of health in the form of wasted damage. While this does make charge bonus less definite in infantry engagements it doesn't change the fundamental issue where cheap units can pay for themselves easily by charging into expensive units.

    MGW charging black orcs should do around 839 damage with 1/3 of the unit attacking on average. This is about 10% of the black orc units health and black orcs cost 1150 so that's about 115 gold value immediately, or 24% of the value of the MGW unit. The black orcs on the other hand deal 1232 damage with 1/3 of the unit attacking on the average, or about 18% of the MGWs health for a gold value of 82 which isn't even 10% of the black orcs cost. Do the black orcs win? Definitely. Is it a good trade? Not even close. Without the charge the MGW deal 323 so even in an engagement where charge is lessened it's still providing around a 2.5 damage increase, or effective adds 1.5 attacks worth of damage. And that's not accounting for the decay speed which allows for 1 to 2 more attacks at lower boni.

    Obviously when we take this out of the context of a unit with 8000 health and bring those damage numbers over to a unit with 4000 health the size of the problem becomes apparent.

    The results of these test suggest to me that charging has probably always been really overtuned for infantry and was largely held in place by the knockback mechanics denying the vast majority of entities their attacks with charge bonus against non-infantry. This wasn't visible in infantry match ups because infantries large and distributed health pools really obscured the value of the charge. Now that infantry are effectively getting their charge bonus off reducing the bonus may be worth while, potentially with WS adjustments to keep combat at a similar pace

    P.S. In sustained combat I still maintain that GW's are lackluster for their cost in most circumstances and some compensation adjustments should come with changes to charge mechanics beyond WS buffs.
    You've made some really good comments here, but i think the emphasis on looking at the charge and relative cost-trade without considering how armour and ap (or many other stats) interact here confounds a lot of what you say. This is why I made a comment calling out the OP for cherry-picking data,we need to see how ALL cav listed in the OP trade into Savage Orcs before we can even have a meaningful starting point for this discussion.

    The reason for this is AP cuts through 20 armour just as easily as it cuts through 110 armour. Even in the infantry VS infantry example of MGW VS Black Orcs,that is a comparison that will always look extremely favourable for the MGW because Black Orcs basically pay 350 for 60 armour, ITP, and AP damage compared to a big un. So the AP they pay for is wasted, the armour they pay for is wasted, and the ITP is irrelevant here compared to a Big Un. So this will always be an extremely cost-effective trade.

    But this doesn't mean cheap units can universally make their value back charging expensive units or anything close to it. If you were to swap out the MGW at 500, for 2-3 marauders costing 750/1125, suddenly the trade will look far less effective (although they may still win) and this trade will still hide the fact that terror routing the marauders should be easy, cheap rear charges into low armour generate big profit, the late game value of a black Orc compared to a marauder GW etc. Then if you change the marauders into CW shields, the trade looks even better for black Orcs.

    This whole discussion was flawed from the start because the testing was done in such a way as to only show the worst possible outcome for cavalry based on their statlines. If you setup the tests to show the result you want you can typically get it, but the implications of the test become meaningless.

    To make this worth discussion (outside CA giving us some stats on Qb pick rates), I would want to see how the collection of cav in the OP perform against:

    - Savage Orcs
    - Savage Orc Big Uns
    - MGW
    - CWGW
    - White Lions
    - Wildwood Rangers
    - Red-Crested Skinks

    If any particular cav needs buffs, then so be it. But to take this premise of cav being underpowered into GW units across the board seriously then there needs to be more fair and well-thought out testing for comparison purposes, which is not what we have in the OP. All the units I gave above are generalist GW units with the exception of the Savage Orcs which I threw in because I think it will be very revealing to see how the relative cost effectiveness of the cav in the OP into Savage Orcs VS Savage Orc Big Uns will change due to their higher price.
    You make some good points most especially around how low cost shock units will always seem to trade up when not considering their weaknesses relative to a pricier more well rounded shock infantry.

    That said, testing methods aside (eg full length units, use of cycling, etc) I don’t know if the 18CB on the white lions Vs the 26 on chaos warriors (and the lower AP damage) will make a huge difference in outcomes. The bigger question is really how often does a full strength gw maurader get a clean frontal charge off on a cav unit and how big a deal is it for cavs role in the game.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674
    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.

    Nice thanks for the info!
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 587
    so infantry were affected by another bug after all for all these years!!! XD XD xD
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 31,833
    Amazing how infantry not only got short-changed on the knockdown issue, they also got cheated out of charge damage for four years. Any other bugs that hobble infantry and which somehow flew under the radar? Maybe shields only work at half effectiveness? Would explain a lot.

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674
    It could be a combination of factors. if you look at this game from last fall at:

    50:15-50:30 see the damage done to and from slayers vs knights errants on the counter charge. This phenomena of slayers actually performing well on a counter charge was new to that patch IMO. Whether it's more dramatic since the more recent patch I don't know.



  • AudacimousAudacimous Registered Users Posts: 165
    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.



    I knew something was fishy cuz the math clearly didn't add up. A QK on the charge will do 89 damage (67 AP). Against CW with 100 armor (75% non-AP damage reduction), it should work out to be 70 damage on average. With 81 MA on the charge, QK will hit 84% against CW's 32 MD, meaning a full frontal charge should do 2646 damage out of 6750 HP, amounting ~ 40% HP.

    For all you people who said these cav-infantry interactions are balanced and it's just unit stats working out as intended, I don't know what to say... Do the math yourself. If infrantry get 2-3 times as many attacks in compared to a cav unit on the charge despite lower CB, is that balanced?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 31,833

    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.



    I knew something was fishy cuz the math clearly didn't add up. A QK on the charge will do 89 damage (67 AP). Against CW with 100 armor (75% non-AP damage reduction), it should work out to be 70 damage on average. With 81 MA on the charge, QK will hit 84% against CW's 32 MD, meaning a full frontal charge should do 2646 damage out of 6750 HP, amounting ~ 40% HP.

    For all you people who said these cav-infantry interactions are balanced and it's just unit stats working out as intended, I don't know what to say... Do the math yourself. If infrantry get 2-3 times as many attacks in compared to a cav unit on the charge despite lower CB, is that balanced?
    No, they were bugged and not working before, NOW we have the intended interactions. High mass units actually got a freebie when getting counter-charged for four years. Just like they got free knockdowns before that bug was fixed.

  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,800
    "Do the math yourself. If infrantry get 2-3 times as many attacks in compared to a cav unit on the charge despite lower CB, is that balanced?"

    It's just a matter of adding up the number of units involved. Not everyone in both units gets to play, but if you take the average Cavalry generally have about 1 horse for every two troopers. Also, troopers are smaller models and can cram into combat a little more efficiently.

    It worked that way on TT too. Goblins, Humans and Elves were small. Chaos Warriors, Orcs and cavalry took up more space. A horse took up about as much space as a Chaos Warrior. I think in TW this is even further exacerbated.

    Funny thing is, if Chaos Knights actually get bigger horses (instead of hell donkeys) they might actually take up more space and do less damage unless the unit is rebalanced.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 367
    edited April 22

    eumaies said:

    Spellbound I think you make a great point there about how cheap and charge bonus go together except you’re missing that in infantry fights charge bonus is less definitive. My chosen will mulch through inferior infantry cost effectively in spite of their modest charge bonus (relative to cav) because their stats dominate the stats of the chaff and most of an infantry fight still occurs in a protracted way. With cav it’s different because they have poor stats so they suffer the charge (when it lands) and also can’t sustain.

    Chosen are a statistical outlier when it comes to unit stats in total war even by cost. Shield chosen having 60 MD is nuts for infantry (which is what Chosen should be) but it makes them a really bad example when discussing unit efficiency. Chosen while exhausted have higher combat stats than most other infantry units in the game have while fresh, the fact that they can trade through enough cheap infantry to make their cost back is not indicative of any other units performance. In practice most expensive infantry have substantially higher MA, Armor, and leadership while receiving only modest increases to MD, health, and charge bonus.

    Having said that I would like to push back on the idea that the majority of an infantry fight takes place in a grind. Infantry often rout rather than fight to the death and infantry charges often can deal between 10% and 20% of an opposing infantry units health. The only reason the percentage is so low is cheap infantry have more bodies which slows combat through a hidden buffer of health in the form of wasted damage. While this does make charge bonus less definite in infantry engagements it doesn't change the fundamental issue where cheap units can pay for themselves easily by charging into expensive units.

    MGW charging black orcs should do around 839 damage with 1/3 of the unit attacking on average. This is about 10% of the black orc units health and black orcs cost 1150 so that's about 115 gold value immediately, or 24% of the value of the MGW unit. The black orcs on the other hand deal 1232 damage with 1/3 of the unit attacking on the average, or about 18% of the MGWs health for a gold value of 82 which isn't even 10% of the black orcs cost. Do the black orcs win? Definitely. Is it a good trade? Not even close. Without the charge the MGW deal 323 so even in an engagement where charge is lessened it's still providing around a 2.5 damage increase, or effective adds 1.5 attacks worth of damage. And that's not accounting for the decay speed which allows for 1 to 2 more attacks at lower boni.

    Obviously when we take this out of the context of a unit with 8000 health and bring those damage numbers over to a unit with 4000 health the size of the problem becomes apparent.

    The results of these test suggest to me that charging has probably always been really overtuned for infantry and was largely held in place by the knockback mechanics denying the vast majority of entities their attacks with charge bonus against non-infantry. This wasn't visible in infantry match ups because infantries large and distributed health pools really obscured the value of the charge. Now that infantry are effectively getting their charge bonus off reducing the bonus may be worth while, potentially with WS adjustments to keep combat at a similar pace

    P.S. In sustained combat I still maintain that GW's are lackluster for their cost in most circumstances and some compensation adjustments should come with changes to charge mechanics beyond WS buffs.
    You've made some really good comments here, but i think the emphasis on looking at the charge and relative cost-trade without considering how armour and ap (or many other stats) interact here confounds a lot of what you say. This is why I made a comment calling out the OP for cherry-picking data,we need to see how ALL cav listed in the OP trade into Savage Orcs before we can even have a meaningful starting point for this discussion.

    The reason for this is AP cuts through 20 armour just as easily as it cuts through 110 armour. Even in the infantry VS infantry example of MGW VS Black Orcs,that is a comparison that will always look extremely favourable for the MGW because Black Orcs basically pay 350 for 60 armour, ITP, and AP damage compared to a big un. So the AP they pay for is wasted, the armour they pay for is wasted, and the ITP is irrelevant here compared to a Big Un. So this will always be an extremely cost-effective trade.

    But this doesn't mean cheap units can universally make their value back charging expensive units or anything close to it. If you were to swap out the MGW at 500, for 2-3 marauders costing 750/1125, suddenly the trade will look far less effective (although they may still win) and this trade will still hide the fact that terror routing the marauders should be easy, cheap rear charges into low armour generate big profit, the late game value of a black Orc compared to a marauder GW etc. Then if you change the marauders into CW shields, the trade looks even better for black Orcs.

    This whole discussion was flawed from the start because the testing was done in such a way as to only show the worst possible outcome for cavalry based on their statlines. If you setup the tests to show the result you want you can typically get it, but the implications of the test become meaningless.

    To make this worth discussion (outside CA giving us some stats on Qb pick rates), I would want to see how the collection of cav in the OP perform against:

    - Savage Orcs
    - Savage Orc Big Uns
    - MGW
    - CWGW
    - White Lions
    - Wildwood Rangers
    - Red-Crested Skinks

    If any particular cav needs buffs, then so be it. But to take this premise of cav being underpowered into GW units across the board seriously then there needs to be more fair and well-thought out testing for comparison purposes, which is not what we have in the OP. All the units I gave above are generalist GW units with the exception of the Savage Orcs which I threw in because I think it will be very revealing to see how the relative cost effectiveness of the cav in the OP into Savage Orcs VS Savage Orc Big Uns will change due to their higher price.
    One of the difficulties of comparing elite units into low tier units is elites always are paying for something that isn't going to be useful in the match up. Black Orcs are a very good unit in spite of this trade being weak for them, largely because of their resistance to non-ap damage and their immunity to terror. In practice outside of the charge interaction I don't think the trade is too egregious overall. It's the level of disparity that is present immediately on the charge that I find worrying.

    Cheap units doing so much damage immediately really undercuts the stat advantage elite units are supposed to bring to the fight. Comparing the performance of MGW and CWGW vs Black Orcs suggests that the cheap unit is getting pretty much the same value as their CWGW buddies on the charge despite having what should be notably worse combat stats (839 vs 905 damage for around 115 and 126 damage value respective). MGW do take more damage in this trade but since so much of their damage is frontloaded the value you get out of the trade is huge even if the MGW were to lose horribly afterwards. And by cost they don't lose as crushingly as a lot of people suggest they do.

    I'm not trying to suggest elite units are unplayable, merely noting how trading down is currently pretty painful without a huge advantage, and even when looking at ideal circumstances while trading down what an elite unit needs to do to recoup their value is difficult. The GW MD thread I made a while back touched on a lot of the fiddly bits that can go into trying to assess the relative value of trades.

    Based on CA_Ducks commentary it does appear that infantry charges were buffed unexpectedly with a bug fix so this question of efficiency for cost may confounded by that. Testing vs AI is never ideal but running MGW's into some Black Orcs a few times showed the MGW pretty easily paying for themselves on a single charge followed by sustained combat, which is much better as a trade than my prediction. Apparently my math is underestimating the number of entities engaging in combat. Also ran a couple runs with Stone Trolls. Again vs AI so take them with a grain of salt but it looks like MGW are able to pay for themselves pretty easily with just the counter charge.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 663
    edited April 23
    Removed
    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
    Pre-Covid Forum Account: Orklads
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674
    I wonder if the great stag changes had any impact for tomb king construct charges...
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,074
    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.

    Interesting Duck, thank you for your comment, I hope that can be fixed
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,173
    I mean honestly, I'm not all that offended by cav units getting high values on cycle charges against infanty. I think it depends and there can be some reasonable middle ground.

    Like we've got our 3 tiers of shock cav
    1. 600 - 1k gold
    2. 1k - 1.3k gold
    3. 1400+ Gold

    Likewise we have tiers of infantry, excluding spears/CDVL from this.
    1.Chaff - 100 - 500
    2. Midtier - 500 - 800
    3. "Elite" - 800 +

    I'm just keeping it general, im sure someone can poke a ton of holes in this if they really try.

    Should, something like a silver helms be able to cycle a Chosen GW? If Chosen GW gets a good charge - is it reasonable that they trade effectively into them? I'd say yeah, thats fine.

    What about the mid tier? If a silverhelm charges an 850 Chaos warrior GW from the front? I'm not sure. I don't think its inherently unreasonable that a heavy infantry in particular can trade well into cav of the equivalent tier if they both perform a frontal charge. As non ap cav, you should be seeking rear/flank charges on heavy infantry. I don't think thats unfair. Note, i'm not saying the CW GW should win.

    Should something like a mid tier anti infantry unit, or say a chaos marauder GW take substantial damage on a mutual charge? Yeah IMO they should get crushed pretty decisively. I think thats okay.

    I think it makes sense to extrapolate these tiers accordingly. Like, I think its significantly more reasonable for something like a dragon prince to land a successfully impactful frontal charge on a mid tier infantry like chaos warriors. Maybe less so against something like chosen or hammers though.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 7,714
    edited April 23
    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.

    THANK YOU for looking into this nasty 20 stack of infantry meta, I hope it will be fixed soon and the game be good again (not saying it should only be about large units but you guys tuned it way too far in the other direction).
    mightygloin_fan_1
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674
    edited April 23
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674
    Cukie251 said:

    I mean honestly, I'm not all that offended by cav units getting high values on cycle charges against infanty. I think it depends and there can be some reasonable middle ground.

    Like we've got our 3 tiers of shock cav
    1. 600 - 1k gold
    2. 1k - 1.3k gold
    3. 1400+ Gold

    Likewise we have tiers of infantry, excluding spears/CDVL from this.
    1.Chaff - 100 - 500
    2. Midtier - 500 - 800
    3. "Elite" - 800 +

    I'm just keeping it general, im sure someone can poke a ton of holes in this if they really try.

    Should, something like a silver helms be able to cycle a Chosen GW? If Chosen GW gets a good charge - is it reasonable that they trade effectively into them? I'd say yeah, thats fine.

    What about the mid tier? If a silverhelm charges an 850 Chaos warrior GW from the front? I'm not sure. I don't think its inherently unreasonable that a heavy infantry in particular can trade well into cav of the equivalent tier if they both perform a frontal charge. As non ap cav, you should be seeking rear/flank charges on heavy infantry. I don't think thats unfair. Note, i'm not saying the CW GW should win.

    Should something like a mid tier anti infantry unit, or say a chaos marauder GW take substantial damage on a mutual charge? Yeah IMO they should get crushed pretty decisively. I think thats okay.

    I think it makes sense to extrapolate these tiers accordingly. Like, I think its significantly more reasonable for something like a dragon prince to land a successfully impactful frontal charge on a mid tier infantry like chaos warriors. Maybe less so against something like chosen or hammers though.

    So long as all the units actually interact where exactly the balance lines aren't really a problem. But keep in mind the damage cav are doing to inf is perfectly fine and not at issue. The question is how big an issue is it that charging infantry vs cav do what their stats and models would suggest and what else will be impacted in efforts modify that if it is an issue.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 465
    So out of curiosity cause I don’t think it got brought up what about cycle charging a infantry unit that isn’t facing and is already fighting? From what’s been said this simply means cycle charging on a forward facing infantry unit is inefficient simply because infantry will trade attacks faster given units take more damage on rear cycle charging than an already preoccupied unit being charged from the back should still be as viable as it was before.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,674

    So out of curiosity cause I don’t think it got brought up what about cycle charging a infantry unit that isn’t facing and is already fighting? From what’s been said this simply means cycle charging on a forward facing infantry unit is inefficient simply because infantry will trade attacks faster given units take more damage on rear cycle charging than an already preoccupied unit being charged from the back should still be as viable as it was before.

    Exactly right. Even charging them braced and unengaged standing still from the front is highly effective against inf. The issue isn’t how much damage the inf takes under any scenario, it’s how much damage the cav takes when they themselves get actively charged.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,655
    edited April 23
    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.

    That is quite alarming, there its nothing suggesting that infantry should be getting this number of attacks more than cav, if this number is correct for infantry which it could be it means the cav attacks are bugged.

    If you look at the attack interval and unit numbers, at most it should be twice the attacks, getting 3x the attacks than cav does not make sense.

    Also it makes no sense currently that its better for defense v large infantry to charge into heavy cav rather than brace.
    Post edited by Lotus_Moon on
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,189
    Fantastic news that duck is figuring it out, makes all the time spent and all the flak received worth it! 😊
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,189
    My guess would be that they did changes in the interplay between animations and hit registration to force damage being registered for stags and now that is making infantry connect way more often than before when going head to head with cav.

    So, I hope we can avoid having a long argument about this being a bug fix and now everything is working as intended. Clearly this was an unexpected side effect of changes made to help stags register their charge damage and it ended up putting infantry on steroids when countercharging cav in the open.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 12,819

    My guess would be that they did changes in the interplay between animations and hit registration to force damage being registered for stags and now that is making infantry connect way more often than before when going head to head with cav.

    So, I hope we can avoid having a long argument about this being a bug fix and now everything is working as intended. Clearly this was an unexpected side effect of changes made to help stags register their charge damage and it ended up putting infantry on steroids when countercharging cav in the open.

    Thats some bold interpretation of words. Duck said it was found because of great Stags such a bug existed not that it was just a issue for great stags alone.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 663
    edited April 23

    Fantastic news that duck is figuring it out, makes all the time spent and all the flak received worth it! 😊

    You win this round.

    You live by the balancing discussion, you die by the balancing discussion.



    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
    Pre-Covid Forum Account: Orklads
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,690
    Not a chest thumping contest folks. Discuss the thread topic without personal comments to or about opposing opinion comments,
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,189

    Fantastic news that duck is figuring it out, makes all the time spent and all the flak received worth it! 😊

    You win this round.

    You live by the balancing discussion, you die by the balancing discussion.

    Image removed.
    That's the point, this was never a competition and was never an attack on the dwarf community to test infantry interactions. I am quite amazed at the effort that has been put into discrediting mine and loupis testing and a good look in the mirror and going over the motivations behind it would not be out of place.

    This interaction changed dramatically and unexpectedly when changes were made to make another unit's (great stags) interactions register more efficiently.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 746
    as has been pointed out CA_duck merely commented that it was part of a bug fix, he did not indicate that meant infantry should now be nerfed (again).
    infantry, especially chaff, does not generally have stellar damage values. As far as i can tell there is no issue, even with a little extra damage on the occasional charge infantry still is performing as they should; a solid outmaneuverable unit that will win most head on melee exchanges against same tier units of other types.
    Cavalry is overall performing as they should, the outcome of AIs duking it out with infantry vs cavalry is not tangibly different from 6 months ago and cavalry should not win against infantry in gold vs gold fights unless they are outmaneuvering them.
Sign In or Register to comment.