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

17891113

Comments

  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,750
    Yeah, a lot of this is a function of unit diversity and have 15+ factions to play with lots of overlap units in each roster. Imagine if Chaos had a Chaos Warrior with hammer warrior that had lower MD but did twice as much damage. I think they would take it.

    Hammerers do over twice as much DPS as Long Beards to a 35 MD opponent. They don't cost twice as much. CA dropped thier MD a few points. It's not fun losing defenses, but overall many people enjoy using the unit. Personally, I am with you I don't do well with units that are a little too fragile and slow. On the other hand, if you want something that drives like a tank you pick yourself something a little safer and less glorious like long beards. They will give better consistency and the long beards will give more holding power for your other DPS, but if you give them GWs they still perform better against armor dudes.

    During the championship I was really surprised how many DW GWs that Alfred took against Evenstar's Bret army, but Bret armies have low-AP archers so dropping the shields was a soft hedge against a lot of armor even though Brets don't have great armor. Maybe he was worried he would see the three Grail Guardians that Showmaker brought earlier. I cannot say, but it was a safe bet like bringing unexpected cavalry vs. Greenskins.

    Interesting stuff. Anyway, don't lose any sleep about 3 to 5 MD. Higher ground, better positioning or a charge advantage is worth far more.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited April 2021

    RawSugar said:

    i just did a couple o quick tests against saurus warriors w shields vs chaos knights w lances. it was fine. cycling the knights did almost double damage value, and had 50% left at end of fight- and again cavalry is not supposed to beat infantry but be somewhat disadvantaged and need their charge+mobility to win if at all.
    Also tried a match of 4 aspiring champion units +1 chaos knights w lances vs 4 saurus warriors w shields. in principle all my units should be disadvantaged against midtier infantry but w cycle charging the knights were able to rack up enough damage (about 1800) to squeeze in the tiniest of wins even with the chaff languishing at 50% damage value.

    So this actually seems alarming based on unit cost. A non-ap infantry at half the cost of a heavily armored shock cav is trading at half value. If the CKL have 50% health left the Saurus earned around 750 damage value from counter charging. Infantry should beat cav in sustained fights sure, but this suggests that even while cycle charging it's a really bad trade.

    As for the Aspiring champions test, that doesn't tell us much. In theory hammer and anvil shouldn't do much to increase cavalry damage (often they max out on accuracy from the CB) but reduce the damage that cavalry take, as well as provide a strong leadership shock. Hammer and anvil should still work fine, potentially a bit better if the bugfix impacted cav charges. No one is suggesting cav don't do sufficient damage, we're concerned with how much they are taking in return when counter charged, which is looking like a more reasonable concern as more data comes in.

    Also Aspiring Champs are god awful in terms of efficiency against infantry. The fact that they don't pay for themselves shouldn't be surprising in this context. In most contexts frankly...
    Its only alarming if you're under the misonception that cavalry should beat infantry. they shouldnt.they beat ranged and are disadvantaged vs infantry, so fighting them about evenly just a tier down is very powerful.
    hammer and anvil is important because thats how cavalry should function vs infantry, you guys are complaining cavalry cant just roflstomp infantry head on, ie you want them to win against a unit type they should lose to played in a way thy shouldnt be played....the tests show that even wehen you misplay them in head on charges the trade is decent as long as the infantry isnt shock itself and that when you do play them the way you should be playing them winning is possible despite playing formally disadvantaged units.

    As for aspiring and your comments on GW...you need to stop obsessing over stats, at best they give you a slight idea about performance, the only way to assess units is tests, if you put them to the test you'll find champs are very powerful in any combat where their armor and MD matters - despite having vanguard and magic. similarly it doesnt matter much that hammerers are less defensive than longbeards. combatpower, who wins most battles matters more,

    At least if you are going to start w stats you cant just note how much more MD MA etc but need to ctually do some calculations to see how much those matter. doing so fx you'll find that pr gold longbeards have an extra 37% hitpoint, while hammerers against longbeards will deal 151% damage. In this particular case there's a lot more going on ItP, CdvL, hammerers having more speed and charge, as well as being more offensive (which is a boon imo, at least for dwarves)...but hammerers follow the established pattern of elites beating midtier in melee, and while the advantage isnt huge they build up if you're able to capitalize on them.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723
    Bastilean said:

    Yeah, a lot of this is a function of unit diversity and have 15+ factions to play with lots of overlap units in each roster. Imagine if Chaos had a Chaos Warrior with hammer warrior that had lower MD but did twice as much damage. I think they would take it.

    Hammerers do over twice as much DPS as Long Beards to a 35 MD opponent. They don't cost twice as much. CA dropped thier MD a few points. It's not fun losing defenses, but overall many people enjoy using the unit. Personally, I am with you I don't do well with units that are a little too fragile and slow. On the other hand, if you want something that drives like a tank you pick yourself something a little safer and less glorious like long beards. They will give better consistency and the long beards will give more holding power for your other DPS, but if you give them GWs they still perform better against armor dudes.

    During the championship I was really surprised how many DW GWs that Alfred took against Evenstar's Bret army, but Bret armies have low-AP archers so dropping the shields was a soft hedge against a lot of armor even though Brets don't have great armor. Maybe he was worried he would see the three Grail Guardians that Showmaker brought earlier. I cannot say, but it was a safe bet like bringing unexpected cavalry vs. Greenskins.

    Interesting stuff. Anyway, don't lose any sleep about 3 to 5 MD. Higher ground, better positioning or a charge advantage is worth far more.

    Balance changes are pretty small so 3 to 5 MD is within the range we'd expect to see in a patch. Seems like a reasonable consideration. I'm also not sure if player enjoyment is the best gauge of balance. Certainly it's a valuable factor to consider but when encouraging a healthy array of units it's necessary to consider perform from a more data driven perspective. Some people really liked the old mass system even though it hugely disadvantaged infantry after all.

    You are correct that by the numbers hammerers should do roughly 220% of the LBGW damage in sustained comabt between WS and MA but raw damage versus practical damage isn't immediately clear. Wasted damage from overkilling infantry, number of attacks necessary to kill models, and of course return damage are all factors that need to be weighed when trying to determine whether a unit is functioning cost effectively. You'll never here me say GW need more damage but I do think the value they bleed to chaff is often not worth the damage gain.

    There are a fair number of infantry who require the same number of attacks from both hammerers and LBGW currently in sustained combat which extends combats and therefore decreases hammerers relative efficiency. Situations where hammerer are at 2 and LBGW are at 3 are also quite common but that means in practice the damage differential is closer to 1.5 times. The charge isn't a clear win for hammerers either, with some cases moving hammerers to one hit and some putting both units to 2 hits. Extra damage taken is much easier to calculate since it's entirely predicated on the 3% accuracy difference. Using Hammerer damage because I'm being lazy the difference is 1898/1774 before armor which is roughly a 7% damage taken increase. Since both units have such close health on a per entity basis determining if this makes a difference in practice would require case by case assessments.

    Having more health is sometimes a benefit and sometimes meaningless given that the number of hits may or may not be changed by the 6 health differences per entity between the units. This is particularly noteworthy when considering the addition hits hammerers take. Sometimes the health buffer they have literally makes no difference between the two units, whereas avoiding more hits on average is consistently useful.

    Again I don't think GW are useless, I just think they should perform better in sustained combat given the cost you incur for using them. Frankly I'm impressed by how much hammerers gain damage wise when compared to a lot of other GW upgrades. I think this has more to do with most dwarf GW having poor stat synergy than Hammerers themselves but it's still impressive. Having said that while gaining between a 50% and 100% (in practice) damage increase is certainly reasonable for a 50% cost increase, this doesn't demonstrate the need for MD loss nor does it account for the value LBs get from their encourage aura, ItP, or CDVL.

    I haven't seen the finals yet so I can't comment on them but the presence of this original post may have convinced players to try GW as a cav counter. Currently the math suggests CDVL is less effective on most infantry so a conclusion you could draw is to go cheap and wide with AP to try and trade up.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723

    Its only alarming if you're under the misonception that cavalry should beat infantry. they shouldnt.they beat ranged and are disadvantaged vs infantry, so fighting them about evenly just a tier down is very powerful.
    hammer and anvil is important because thats how cavalry should function vs infantry, you guys are complaining cavalry cant just roflstomp infantry head on, ie you want them to win against a unit type they should lose to played in a way thy shouldnt be played....the tests show that even wehen you misplay them in head on charges the trade is decent as long as the infantry isnt shock itself and that when you do play them the way you should be playing them winning is possible despite playing formally disadvantaged units.

    I really feel like you're balance expectations for cavalry and infantry engagements are pretty off if you think a non-ap infantry should trade evenly upwards on the charge rather than in sustained combat against shock cavalry. Like I could understand getting half value as a reasonable outcome for non ap because the accuracy increase from CB is a big deal. And obviously in sustained combat infantry should generally beat shock cav (some melee cav against chaff might be another story) but for non ap infantry to be able to pay for themselves by just charging into a unit with 120 armor is completely ridiculous. It has nothing to do with people wanting cav to instantly win against infantry it's pointing out how this bugfix had such a large impact that it's devaluing armor as a defensive stat for cav (and seemingly for other units types). That is an alarming finding and it would be in any circumstance. If a bug allowed Marauders with shields to charge CWs and pay for themselves just off of the charge people would be concerned. That's essentially what the test results you presented are suggesting.

    As for aspiring and your comments on GW...you need to stop obsessing over stats, at best they give you a slight idea about performance, the only way to assess units is tests, if you put them to the test you'll find champs are very powerful in any combat where their armor and MD matters - despite having vanguard and magic. similarly it doesnt matter much that hammerers are less defensive than longbeards. combatpower, who wins most battles matters more,

    I mean stats are what results in performance. They should in fact be directly linked. If they aren't that would be a major problem. I'd argue aspiring champs are bad even when their armor and MD matters because they are 12 units who have less WS than Saurus Warriors. They even have a worse ap ratio than Saurus Warriors. Sure Aspiring Champions take forever to die and they get basically minimum hit chance against chaff but just in terms of number of attacks they're always bafflingly behind. I've never seen a human being in a multiplayer match pick aspiring champions without explicitly memeing and then they still lost because the units just fundamentally don't seem to have a purpose. The absurd slowness with which they deal damage is just hugely problematic.

    At least if you are going to start w stats you cant just note how much more MD MA etc but need to ctually do some calculations to see how much those matter. doing so fx you'll find that pr gold longbeards have an extra 37% hitpoint, while hammerers against longbeards will deal 151% damage. In this particular case there's a lot more going on ItP, CdvL, hammerers having more speed and charge, as well as being more offensive (which is a boon imo, at least for dwarves)...but hammerers follow the established pattern of elites beating midtier in melee, and while the advantage isnt huge they build up if you're able to capitalize on them.

    So I've done this. I've largely not been trying to vomit out numbers because it's kind of off topic and it's a lot of junk only some people are interested in. I did an entire other thread that was full of numbers a while back. I'm largely considering this discussion because other people are engaging in good faith and I appreciate hearing their perspectives on the matter. My last post went into some of the factors that you'd need to evaluate when comparing unit performance. Even then I don't think elite GW beating mid-tier infantry handily is enough for them to be a comfortable pick when they are more vulnerable to magic, artillery, ranged, charges, etc. than their shielded counterparts.

    Also it might be because I should have gone to sleep a couple hours ago but I've having trouble parsing your breakdown. If you're talking hitpoints for cost that's a pretty useless stat given that hp has at best a tenuous relationship to cost even within a unit class. HP is basically a free stat as the game is currently balanced with the difference between a 325 cost unit (miners) and an 1100 cost unit (hammerers) being 1200 which is at best a 20% increase. In terms of damage value miners have a ratio of .057 gold value per hp while hammerers have a ratio of .174 gold value per hp. Effectively every point of damage done to a hammerer is 3 times as valuable as a point done to a miner. It's completely borked with cheap units bringing and absurd amount of health for their price. I never bring up this comparison because it's so laughably lopsided for elite infantry it's painful. Plus then it opens the door for talking about how this means cheap infantry losses basically have no effect on the balance of power which means losing them in a game has very little impact on the overall outcome, and that pushes the discussion towards how army losses as a system is effectively biased against elite infantry, and that's just a whole thing I don't want to get into right now. This is largely why elite infantry can kill literally a third of an army and not pay for themselves. Most of the health brought to a game has nearly zero value, even when you bring a mixed quality army since cheap infantry by their nature contribute a disproportionate amount of health for the cost.

    Health (like shields) seems to have at best a minimal impact on how a unit is priced and is viewed as substantially less valuable than armor and ap ratios. The rest of what you said is otherwise pretty close to what I put in my previous post so I'll direct you there. The short version (Which for me doesn't mean much) is I don't think a 50% damage increase for a 50% cost increase is worthwhile when you consider the defensive and utility stats that are sacrificed in the upgrade.

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    fast melee beats ranged and loses to slow melee, this is really basic balancing. Fast melee beating most subtypes of slow melee can only come at a heavy cost, like chariots. the cost cant just be a high charge bonus that needs to be occasionally used for the unit to be effective.
    shield and handweapon infantry only being slightly outdamaged in head to head charge is how the game should be, and a cavalry unit costing double having half hitpoint left after beating the infantry unit with cycle charging is perfectly balanced. its an about even trade, thats the most cavalry should hope for vs infantry.
    and yeah stats dictate performance along with animations but you cant read them...for example how you misread aspiring champions. compare their performance to dryads (also vanguard and magic) vs empire swordsmen.

    the hammerer vs longbeard comparison is health and dps adjusted for gold price, it shows how equal value of those unit will perform. longbeards have 37% extra life, hammerers deal 51% more damage. hammerers win.
    hitpoint + MD + armor is what drives the mechanic of elite being vulnerable to ranged while being strong in melee. in melee hitpoint are worth a lot more with high MD, and armor similarly can make a unit far more defensive than a high hitpoint pool. the reason this is balanced is how easily ranged can be shut down by fast melee which in turn is wjy fast melee must be vulnerable to other unit types.
    Which it always has been. the only thing charge exchanges matter for is endgame. the endgame abuse has ended, there is no tangible change to cavalry performance until that moment.
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117
    First up I want to say that I disagree with the premise that shock cavalry is a direct counter to all non BvL infantry. However having tested this interaction myself I do agree that mutual charges are currently favouring infantry too much.

    From my tests I found that true shock cavalry such as Grail Knights or Knights Errant(not Questing Knights which are melee cavalry) perform exactly as I would expect against braced Chaos Warriors Great Weapons. ie they win with cycle charging. The Knights Errant do so cost efficiently but the Grail Knights do not. However the Grail Knights are still healthy enough to accrue additional value in subsequent engagements so I consider it alright.

    With a mutual charge the Chaos Warriors beat Grail Knights. The big point of difference with this test was just how much further into the infantry formation the knights penetrated.

    However I conducted a third test where the Chaos Warriors ran at the Grail Knights without an attack order and they got absolutely decimated. The Grail Knights didn't even need to cycle charge. The most striking thing from this test was just how many of the Chaos Warriors got knocked over which completely destroyed their formation.

    A summary of these interactions is:

    1 - shock cavalry charge braced non CDvL/BvL infantry results in the cavalry routing the infantry but the infantry can still trade in the positive regards damage value.

    2 - shock cavalry/infantry mutual charge results in the infantry routing the cavalry

    3 - shock cavalry charge non braced infantry results in a decisive victory to the cavalry

    IMO 1 and 3 are as they should be, it's only interaction number 2 that is not.

    My take is that this occurs due to the infantry not being knocked over in the counter charge and the knights penetrating deeper into their formation which results in a situation where there are multiple infantry models fighting single cavalry models. This would account for the infantry registering three times as many hits as the cavalry.

    My suggestion to fix this is to lower the mass of infantry but then increase the bonus they get from bracing so that their mass when bracing is the same as now. This would have no impact on situation 1, little impact on situation 3 and bring situation 2 more in line with situation 3 where it should be.

    This would leave the interactions as follows:

    1 - shock cavalry charge braced non CDvL/BvL infantry results in the cavalry routing the infantry but the infantry can still trade in the positive regards damage value.

    2 - shock cavalry/infantry mutual charge results in a victory to the cavalry

    3 - shock cavalry charge non braced infantry results in a decisive victory to the cavalry

    Of course all this relates to cavalry charging damage dealing infantry(great weapons etc) not chaff like peasant mobs or swordsmen who heavy cavalry should always trade favourably against.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2021



    IMO 1 and 3 are as they should be, it's only interaction number 2 that is not.

    #2 is perfectly OK. If you charge high damage infantry from the front and allow them to get a charge off on you, you deserve to get punished for it. Cavalry is fast, if you feel the need to chargef from the front you haven't utilized the advantage of cavalry right and therefore don't deserve any cheap pay off.

    It's pretty damn obvious the mourners for the bowling pin meta just want balance bent in a way so that just brute-force frontal charges with high-mass units hard counter infantry frontlines again.

    That's is not acceptable and not desirable as it results in a worse game experience.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    edited April 2021
    Nope it's rather that now axe infantry can waltz around alone on the open field and shock cav has to be afraid of going near them if they dont bring support to protect them! 🙃
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    First up I want to say that I disagree with the premise that shock cavalry is a direct counter to all non BvL infantry. However having tested this interaction myself I do agree that mutual charges are currently favouring infantry too much.

    From my tests I found that true shock cavalry such as Grail Knights or Knights Errant(not Questing Knights which are melee cavalry) perform exactly as I would expect against braced Chaos Warriors Great Weapons. ie they win with cycle charging. The Knights Errant do so cost efficiently but the Grail Knights do not. However the Grail Knights are still healthy enough to accrue additional value in subsequent engagements so I consider it alright.

    With a mutual charge the Chaos Warriors beat Grail Knights. The big point of difference with this test was just how much further into the infantry formation the knights penetrated.

    However I conducted a third test where the Chaos Warriors ran at the Grail Knights without an attack order and they got absolutely decimated. The Grail Knights didn't even need to cycle charge. The most striking thing from this test was just how many of the Chaos Warriors got knocked over which completely destroyed their formation.

    A summary of these interactions is:

    1 - shock cavalry charge braced non CDvL/BvL infantry results in the cavalry routing the infantry but the infantry can still trade in the positive regards damage value.

    2 - shock cavalry/infantry mutual charge results in the infantry routing the cavalry

    3 - shock cavalry charge non braced infantry results in a decisive victory to the cavalry

    IMO 1 and 3 are as they should be, it's only interaction number 2 that is not.

    My take is that this occurs due to the infantry not being knocked over in the counter charge and the knights penetrating deeper into their formation which results in a situation where there are multiple infantry models fighting single cavalry models. This would account for the infantry registering three times as many hits as the cavalry.

    My suggestion to fix this is to lower the mass of infantry but then increase the bonus they get from bracing so that their mass when bracing is the same as now. This would have no impact on situation 1, little impact on situation 3 and bring situation 2 more in line with situation 3 where it should be.

    This would leave the interactions as follows:

    1 - shock cavalry charge braced non CDvL/BvL infantry results in the cavalry routing the infantry but the infantry can still trade in the positive regards damage value.

    2 - shock cavalry/infantry mutual charge results in a victory to the cavalry

    3 - shock cavalry charge non braced infantry results in a decisive victory to the cavalry

    Of course all this relates to cavalry charging damage dealing infantry(great weapons etc) not chaff like peasant mobs or swordsmen who heavy cavalry should always trade favourably against.

    I think you're close to what we found, but I would be careful to meddle much with general stats since they will also affect infantry infraction with monsters and monstrous infantry, and as far as I know these are not problematic.

    I think fixes need to be directly to the behaviour on the charge. Maybe infantry cohesion during their actual charge, or something with the timing of the cav charge animations, or the splash multiplier for cav (the power of knockbacks) etc. The more precise the fix, the better, because for most part things are in a pretty OK spot.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117



    IMO 1 and 3 are as they should be, it's only interaction number 2 that is not.

    #2 is perfectly OK. If you charge high damage infantry from the front and allow them to get a charge off on you, you deserve to get punished for it. Cavalry is fast, if you feel the need to chargef from the front you haven't utilized the advantage of cavalry right and therefore don't deserve any cheap pay off.

    It's pretty damn obvious the mourners for the bowling pin meta just want balance bent in a way so that just brute-force frontal charges with high-mass units hard counter infantry frontlines again.

    That's is not acceptable and not desirable as it results in a worse game experience.
    Yes counter charging great weapon infantry should win on a value trade but not in absolute terms. The only time infantry like CWGW should beat(rout 1v1) a unit like GK is if the GK don't get their charge.

    As for infantry front lines, the way to prevent them from being overrun by large should be either CDvL infantry or chaff like peasant mobs to soak the charge then have the GW infantry counter charge. GW infantry all on their own should not be able to rout heavy shock cavalry that make their charge.

    Finally my suggested changes are aimed at creating a situation where braced infantry would behave just as they do now vs large while moving infantry are more vulnerable. You know making combat more tactical.
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117
    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
  • whymakemedothiswhymakemedothis Registered Users Posts: 117
    @Disposable Hero I'm no expert on the mechanics under the hood but I can't see how charge animations or splash multipliers could provide the granularity to effect the counter charge interaction as they would effect the braced interaction as well. As for charging unit cohesion that could work but my understanding is that units only have two states, braced and not braced.

    The intended effects of my suggestion are to leave braced infantry with the exact same mass they have now while reducing the mass of mobile infantry formations.

    This would result in a meta where you almost always want your infantry braced when being charged by large(cavalry/monsters/monstrous infantry) compared to the current one where you often want to counter charge large in order to have them penetrate deeper into your formations making it harder for them to pull out and cycle charge.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,218
    You take dwarf GW Vs Brett for a couple reasons:

    - foot squires have armour
    - Cavalry have armour (whether you get to charge them or just end up in a grind with them)
    - If you are slaughtering cheap peasants you want to do that quickly so your not playing into getting you units all bogged down.

    Especially with their charge bonus improvements in recent patches dwarf GW tend to be better at trading with a lot of infantry than dwarf warriors. Dwarf warriors are mostly good at losing slowly, for example even to same cost empire swordsmen.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited April 2021

    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
    heavy cavalry is still fast melee, and still counter ranged. light cavalry is also fast melee but more specialized to the point where they arent even guaranteed to win against some decent melee ranged units. but heavy cavalry are still mainly antiranged, thats the fight where they are heavily favored, they can win a bunch of other fights (many that light fast melee cant) but they have twice the move of slow melee and if you want them to double their value you target enemy ranged with them.
    As for the changes you suggest, its hard to say without seeing some numbers. GW infantry are supposed to do well against large enemies, better than shield infantry, not as good as spears. Id say thats the spot they're in now, if your changes dont mess with that they might be ok.

    I will say tho that you tested with grail knights which are antilarge. they defo should not trade well against GW infantry.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,218
    RawSugar said:

    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
    heavy cavalry is still fast melee, and still counter ranged. light cavalry is also fast melee but more specialized to the point where they arent even guaranteed to win against some decent melee ranged units. but heavy cavalry are still mainly antiranged, thats the fight where they are heavily favored, they can win a bunch of other fights (many that light fast melee cant) but they have twice the move of slow melee and if you want them to double their value you target enemy ranged with them.
    As for the changes you suggest, its hard to say without seeing some numbers. GW infantry are supposed to do well against large enemies, better than shield infantry, not as good as spears. Id say thats the spot they're in now, if your changes dont mess with that they might be ok.

    I will say tho that you tested with grail knights which are antilarge. they defo should not trade well against GW infantry.
    I disagree, I think heavy cav are meant to punish infantry hard, and they can and do. You could debate about whether charging infantry should perform the way they do vs cav but in practice cavalry do excellent damage to infantry through advantageous charges.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2021

    Nope euphorion it's rather that now axe infantry can waltz around alone on the open field and shock cav has to be afraid of going near them if they dont bring support to protect them! 🙃

    If you can't outmaneuver infantry with cavalry, then that's not a problem with the game's balance but with your lack of committment.

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    so uhm. query: when is this change supposed to have taken effect?
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001



    IMO 1 and 3 are as they should be, it's only interaction number 2 that is not.

    #2 is perfectly OK. If you charge high damage infantry from the front and allow them to get a charge off on you, you deserve to get punished for it. Cavalry is fast, if you feel the need to chargef from the front you haven't utilized the advantage of cavalry right and therefore don't deserve any cheap pay off.

    It's pretty damn obvious the mourners for the bowling pin meta just want balance bent in a way so that just brute-force frontal charges with high-mass units hard counter infantry frontlines again.

    That's is not acceptable and not desirable as it results in a worse game experience.
    Yes counter charging great weapon infantry should win on a value trade but not in absolute terms. The only time infantry like CWGW should beat(rout 1v1) a unit like GK is if the GK don't get their charge.

    As for infantry front lines, the way to prevent them from being overrun by large should be either CDvL infantry or chaff like peasant mobs to soak the charge then have the GW infantry counter charge. GW infantry all on their own should not be able to rout heavy shock cavalry that make their charge.

    Finally my suggested changes are aimed at creating a situation where braced infantry would behave just as they do now vs large while moving infantry are more vulnerable. You know making combat more tactical.
    I see no reason whatsoever why shock cav should never get routed when charging frontally into high burst damage infantry. Cav has the speed and maneuverability advantage and deciding to forego that advantage for a primitive frontal attack that allows a counter-charge should not be rewarded.

    Why reward players for lazy play? Please explain that.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
    heavy cavalry is still fast melee, and still counter ranged. light cavalry is also fast melee but more specialized to the point where they arent even guaranteed to win against some decent melee ranged units. but heavy cavalry are still mainly antiranged, thats the fight where they are heavily favored, they can win a bunch of other fights (many that light fast melee cant) but they have twice the move of slow melee and if you want them to double their value you target enemy ranged with them.
    As for the changes you suggest, its hard to say without seeing some numbers. GW infantry are supposed to do well against large enemies, better than shield infantry, not as good as spears. Id say thats the spot they're in now, if your changes dont mess with that they might be ok.

    I will say tho that you tested with grail knights which are antilarge. they defo should not trade well against GW infantry.
    I disagree, I think heavy cav are meant to punish infantry hard, and they can and do. You could debate about whether charging infantry should perform the way they do vs cav but in practice cavalry do excellent damage to infantry through advantageous charges.
    cavalry can win against infantry two tiers down and fight evenly with those 1 tier down (obviously AP, armor and faction/quality matters a ton as well). but cavalry is not a great choice generally to fight infantry. you can outplay and be outplayed, you can use strong melee/heavy armor vs nonAP chaff, but you dont get the kind of advantage you get vs ranged, where as long as you get to fight you win. Chariots or other antiinfantry fast melee do somewhat better usually at the expense of some other weakness.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,218
    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
    heavy cavalry is still fast melee, and still counter ranged. light cavalry is also fast melee but more specialized to the point where they arent even guaranteed to win against some decent melee ranged units. but heavy cavalry are still mainly antiranged, thats the fight where they are heavily favored, they can win a bunch of other fights (many that light fast melee cant) but they have twice the move of slow melee and if you want them to double their value you target enemy ranged with them.
    As for the changes you suggest, its hard to say without seeing some numbers. GW infantry are supposed to do well against large enemies, better than shield infantry, not as good as spears. Id say thats the spot they're in now, if your changes dont mess with that they might be ok.

    I will say tho that you tested with grail knights which are antilarge. they defo should not trade well against GW infantry.
    I disagree, I think heavy cav are meant to punish infantry hard, and they can and do. You could debate about whether charging infantry should perform the way they do vs cav but in practice cavalry do excellent damage to infantry through advantageous charges.
    cavalry can win against infantry two tiers down and fight evenly with those 1 tier down (obviously AP, armor and faction/quality matters a ton as well). but cavalry is not a great choice generally to fight infantry. you can outplay and be outplayed, you can use strong melee/heavy armor vs nonAP chaff, but you dont get the kind of advantage you get vs ranged, where as long as you get to fight you win. Chariots or other antiinfantry fast melee do somewhat better usually at the expense of some other weakness.
    I think what's youre describing is accurate with respect to 1v1s and extended solo engagements. But in terms of how people understand it cavalry do frequently trade up vs inf precisely because they can force favorable engagements.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    Nope euphorion it's rather that now axe infantry can waltz around alone on the open field and shock cav has to be afraid of going near them if they dont bring support to protect them! 🙃

    If you can't outmaneuver infantry with cavalry, then that's not a problem with the game's balance but with your lack of committment.

    I can't pervent an infantry unit from countercharging my cav when i charge and neither can you, because nobody can.

    You can use another unit to tie up the infantry, so yes 1200 gold cav plus 325 gold spear can easily kill 500 gold marauder gw with their unit number advantage but more fairly 1 unit of cav vs the equivalent of 2.5 units of infantry can in no way avoid being counter charged without help. No amount maneuvering will achieve that. You can out maneuver bracing but not counter charging.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,218

    Nope euphorion it's rather that now axe infantry can waltz around alone on the open field and shock cav has to be afraid of going near them if they dont bring support to protect them! 🙃

    If you can't outmaneuver infantry with cavalry, then that's not a problem with the game's balance but with your lack of committment.

    I can't pervent an infantry unit from countercharging my cav when i charge and neither can you, because nobody can.

    You can use another unit to tie up the infantry, so yes 1200 gold cav plus 325 gold spear can easily kill 500 gold marauder gw with their unit number advantage but more fairly 1 unit of cav vs the equivalent of 2.5 units of infantry can in no way avoid being counter charged without help. No amount maneuvering will achieve that. You can out maneuver bracing but not counter charging.
    technically in that scenario you couldn't outmaneuver bracing either. And in practice it's hard to get charges off with any unit against a faster unit because you're not in control of the pacing. But yes in an end game scenario the current game design favors a shock inf over a shock cav.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    eumaies said:

    Nope euphorion it's rather that now axe infantry can waltz around alone on the open field and shock cav has to be afraid of going near them if they dont bring support to protect them! 🙃

    If you can't outmaneuver infantry with cavalry, then that's not a problem with the game's balance but with your lack of committment.

    I can't pervent an infantry unit from countercharging my cav when i charge and neither can you, because nobody can.

    You can use another unit to tie up the infantry, so yes 1200 gold cav plus 325 gold spear can easily kill 500 gold marauder gw with their unit number advantage but more fairly 1 unit of cav vs the equivalent of 2.5 units of infantry can in no way avoid being counter charged without help. No amount maneuvering will achieve that. You can out maneuver bracing but not counter charging.
    technically in that scenario you couldn't outmaneuver bracing either. And in practice it's hard to get charges off with any unit against a faster unit because you're not in control of the pacing. But yes in an end game scenario the current game design favors a shock inf over a shock cav.
    Not only end game, also any isolated/over extended unit, ie these units don't really need support in order to be safe vs opponents flanking or harassing cav. That's a full swing in how these units have been threatening each other.

    Vs bracing you can at least try to maneuver since bracing is slow and wonky and you can rather easily catch them unbraced if you first force them to move.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,218

    eumaies said:

    Nope euphorion it's rather that now axe infantry can waltz around alone on the open field and shock cav has to be afraid of going near them if they dont bring support to protect them! 🙃

    If you can't outmaneuver infantry with cavalry, then that's not a problem with the game's balance but with your lack of committment.

    I can't pervent an infantry unit from countercharging my cav when i charge and neither can you, because nobody can.

    You can use another unit to tie up the infantry, so yes 1200 gold cav plus 325 gold spear can easily kill 500 gold marauder gw with their unit number advantage but more fairly 1 unit of cav vs the equivalent of 2.5 units of infantry can in no way avoid being counter charged without help. No amount maneuvering will achieve that. You can out maneuver bracing but not counter charging.
    technically in that scenario you couldn't outmaneuver bracing either. And in practice it's hard to get charges off with any unit against a faster unit because you're not in control of the pacing. But yes in an end game scenario the current game design favors a shock inf over a shock cav.
    Not only end game, also any isolated/over extended unit, ie these units don't really need support in order to be safe vs opponents flanking or harassing cav. That's a full swing in how these units have been threatening each other.

    Vs bracing you can at least try to maneuver since bracing is slow and wonky and you can rather easily catch them unbraced if you first force them to move.
    Re: bracing you were describing a 2v1.

    But yes in one v ones the cav are at a modest disadvantage; a tragedy. In a real game it’s typically a more mobile army or group of units picking off isolated slower units with multi unit surrounds that is the chief advantage that allows for a highly advantageous trade though.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
    heavy cavalry is still fast melee, and still counter ranged. light cavalry is also fast melee but more specialized to the point where they arent even guaranteed to win against some decent melee ranged units. but heavy cavalry are still mainly antiranged, thats the fight where they are heavily favored, they can win a bunch of other fights (many that light fast melee cant) but they have twice the move of slow melee and if you want them to double their value you target enemy ranged with them.
    As for the changes you suggest, its hard to say without seeing some numbers. GW infantry are supposed to do well against large enemies, better than shield infantry, not as good as spears. Id say thats the spot they're in now, if your changes dont mess with that they might be ok.

    I will say tho that you tested with grail knights which are antilarge. they defo should not trade well against GW infantry.
    I disagree, I think heavy cav are meant to punish infantry hard, and they can and do. You could debate about whether charging infantry should perform the way they do vs cav but in practice cavalry do excellent damage to infantry through advantageous charges.
    cavalry can win against infantry two tiers down and fight evenly with those 1 tier down (obviously AP, armor and faction/quality matters a ton as well). but cavalry is not a great choice generally to fight infantry. you can outplay and be outplayed, you can use strong melee/heavy armor vs nonAP chaff, but you dont get the kind of advantage you get vs ranged, where as long as you get to fight you win. Chariots or other antiinfantry fast melee do somewhat better usually at the expense of some other weakness.
    I think what's youre describing is accurate with respect to 1v1s and extended solo engagements. But in terms of how people understand it cavalry do frequently trade up vs inf precisely because they can force favorable engagements.
    so just to be clear; are you saying heavy cavalry is a strong counter or is favored rather than disfavored against mid/hightier infantry like GWCW or hammerers?
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,218
    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    RawSugar said:

    @whymakemedothis this would result in cavalry trading favorably unless charged unilaterally by infantry or charging into braced infantry, ie cavalry trades favorably unless cavalry player disastrously misplays, and if he does, as the test shows cavalry is only slightly disfavored. that is on average cavalry is indeed a counter to most infantry as well as ranged - and shock infantry have to sacrifice their charge bonus to have small chance vs cavalry----that is not balanced, and it contradicts your opening statement that you dont think cavalry should counter infantry.
    balance is infantry is favored vs cavalry and cavalry has a chance to overcome that by playing well and infantry misplaying.

    My interpretation of a counter is a unit that beats another gold for gold. With the changes I've suggested cavalry would not beat infantry gold for gold unless they get a rear charge or charge them while they're moving. If the infantry counter charge they win or break even in terms of damage value but will still end up being routed by the more expensive cavalry unit.

    On a more general point you continually say that fast melee beats ranged. That is true. However heavy cavalry are not fast melee. Fast melee are things like hounds and light cavalry such as Dark Riders. Heavy cavalry, shock cavalry in particular, are meant to function as the hammer in hammer and anvil tactics. To a degree that makes them a soft counter to infantry in that if you can use them to rear charge an engaged unit they will trade more than cost effectively.
    heavy cavalry is still fast melee, and still counter ranged. light cavalry is also fast melee but more specialized to the point where they arent even guaranteed to win against some decent melee ranged units. but heavy cavalry are still mainly antiranged, thats the fight where they are heavily favored, they can win a bunch of other fights (many that light fast melee cant) but they have twice the move of slow melee and if you want them to double their value you target enemy ranged with them.
    As for the changes you suggest, its hard to say without seeing some numbers. GW infantry are supposed to do well against large enemies, better than shield infantry, not as good as spears. Id say thats the spot they're in now, if your changes dont mess with that they might be ok.

    I will say tho that you tested with grail knights which are antilarge. they defo should not trade well against GW infantry.
    I disagree, I think heavy cav are meant to punish infantry hard, and they can and do. You could debate about whether charging infantry should perform the way they do vs cav but in practice cavalry do excellent damage to infantry through advantageous charges.
    cavalry can win against infantry two tiers down and fight evenly with those 1 tier down (obviously AP, armor and faction/quality matters a ton as well). but cavalry is not a great choice generally to fight infantry. you can outplay and be outplayed, you can use strong melee/heavy armor vs nonAP chaff, but you dont get the kind of advantage you get vs ranged, where as long as you get to fight you win. Chariots or other antiinfantry fast melee do somewhat better usually at the expense of some other weakness.
    I think what's youre describing is accurate with respect to 1v1s and extended solo engagements. But in terms of how people understand it cavalry do frequently trade up vs inf precisely because they can force favorable engagements.
    so just to be clear; are you saying heavy cavalry is a strong counter or is favored rather than disfavored against mid/hightier infantry like GWCW or hammerers?
    1v1 it’s no longer a strong counter. But if you establish a mobile advantage cav can still get a great return Vs such units using combined arms or defeating them in detail.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723
    RawSugar said:

    fast melee beats ranged and loses to slow melee, this is really basic balancing. Fast melee beating most subtypes of slow melee can only come at a heavy cost, like chariots. the cost cant just be a high charge bonus that needs to be occasionally used for the unit to be effective.
    shield and handweapon infantry only being slightly outdamaged in head to head charge is how the game should be, and a cavalry unit costing double having half hitpoint left after beating the infantry unit with cycle charging is perfectly balanced. its an about even trade, thats the most cavalry should hope for vs infantry.
    and yeah stats dictate performance along with animations but you cant read them...for example how you misread aspiring champions. compare their performance to dryads (also vanguard and magic) vs empire swordsmen.

    the hammerer vs longbeard comparison is health and dps adjusted for gold price, it shows how equal value of those unit will perform. longbeards have 37% extra life, hammerers deal 51% more damage. hammerers win.
    hitpoint + MD + armor is what drives the mechanic of elite being vulnerable to ranged while being strong in melee. in melee hitpoint are worth a lot more with high MD, and armor similarly can make a unit far more defensive than a high hitpoint pool. the reason this is balanced is how easily ranged can be shut down by fast melee which in turn is wjy fast melee must be vulnerable to other unit types.
    Which it always has been. the only thing charge exchanges matter for is endgame. the endgame abuse has ended, there is no tangible change to cavalry performance until that moment.

    So I'm late to point this out but your basic premise is flawed. Just like infantry is divided into subcategories so are cavalry. Heavy cavalry trade speed for damage, defense, and cost when compared to light cav but all cav when compared to infantry is already paying a huge defensive cost for their mobility. The premise that the cost is just a high charge bonus is clearly not accurately reflecting the actual units.

    Shield and handweapon infantry are not supposed to be shock infantry. The fact that they trade evenly or better by cost just from counter charging heavy shock cav is clearly unreasonable. Like for the ap infantry you have an argument but there is no one a non ap unit designed for sustained should trade cost effectively into an armored unit designed to deal shock damage.

    I really don't know what you're trying to say with aspiring champions? Like they trade cost effectively into chaff? They lose on the charge to everything because they have 12 models, they have WS so low they can't kill anything other than a Skavenslave in a single hit without the charge, they have a tiny health pool, they can't really tarpit because they're 12 dudes with infantry mass. They have vanguard which just doesn't make sense in the army they are in. If your argument is they are a cost effective frontline I'm confident you're just wrong even without having to talk stats. They are easily ignorable because they don't do anything. You can literally avoiding engaging with them or just push a chaff unit into them and be confident they won't have any notable effect on the battle. They trade into chaff pretty mediocrely for their cost and they're prime targets for high charge and high WS melee units. Comparing their performance to just a chaff into chaff trade shows no notable gain in value, but chaff are actually useful for things. Like this is completely tangential but the unit design for them is so fundamentally flawed they just don't serve much of a purpose. I've seen people suggest you could just use them to pin infantry for a wind spell but chaff does this better and cheaper since you can pretty easily pull away from the 12 dudes with no mass. Like if your argument is that stats don't tell the whole story, you have a point but aspiring champs are not a great example.

    So you were scaling health and damage by cost without accounting for factors like overkilling or number of hits to kill a model which are a mixed bag for both units. That does explain how you got your values though your methodology is likely overvaluing the extra WS and CB in instances where the total number of hits to kill a model is unchanged. Also your premise that hp is more valuable than MD in melee is just patently false. 6 hp difference with the same armor value is way less impactful than getting hit 3% more as even low WS units deal consistent chip damage when considering base ap values. Armor is much more impactful but the units in question have identical armor values so the point is moot.

    Also this is a tangible change in combat performance. Duck explicitly noted there is a difference and he suspects it's the result of the bugfix in question. If you want to argue the new performance is fine that's one thing but the patch had a pretty substantial effect in all circumstances, not just the late game.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723



    IMO 1 and 3 are as they should be, it's only interaction number 2 that is not.

    #2 is perfectly OK. If you charge high damage infantry from the front and allow them to get a charge off on you, you deserve to get punished for it. Cavalry is fast, if you feel the need to chargef from the front you haven't utilized the advantage of cavalry right and therefore don't deserve any cheap pay off.

    It's pretty damn obvious the mourners for the bowling pin meta just want balance bent in a way so that just brute-force frontal charges with high-mass units hard counter infantry frontlines again.

    That's is not acceptable and not desirable as it results in a worse game experience.
    Yes counter charging great weapon infantry should win on a value trade but not in absolute terms. The only time infantry like CWGW should beat(rout 1v1) a unit like GK is if the GK don't get their charge.

    As for infantry front lines, the way to prevent them from being overrun by large should be either CDvL infantry or chaff like peasant mobs to soak the charge then have the GW infantry counter charge. GW infantry all on their own should not be able to rout heavy shock cavalry that make their charge.

    Finally my suggested changes are aimed at creating a situation where braced infantry would behave just as they do now vs large while moving infantry are more vulnerable. You know making combat more tactical.
    I see no reason whatsoever why shock cav should never get routed when charging frontally into high burst damage infantry. Cav has the speed and maneuverability advantage and deciding to forego that advantage for a primitive frontal attack that allows a counter-charge should not be rewarded.

    Why reward players for lazy play? Please explain that.
    No one is suggesting that they should never be able to rout cav, just that they shouldn't always rout cav which is what we're seeing a lot of circumstances now.

    I'd also argue that counter charging with infantry is equally lazy play, but I guess we're penalizing a unit for being "high micro" here? I'm not opposed to infantry dealing a decent amount of damage on a counter charge but they shouldn't be essentially paying for themselves with one click.

    If they were dealing half of the damage they are doing now it would still discourage frontal charges because cavalry are at base more fragile units but it would leave the option to force a value grind for the cav players, as well as incentivize using CDvL to defend your other infantry.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723
    RawSugar said:

    so uhm. query: when is this change supposed to have taken effect?

    Rakarth patch. So march 18th.
Sign In or Register to comment.