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

Why is infantry charge bonus worth preserving?

2

Comments

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,007
    edited May 4

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    aha, so its not mass but the length of the weapon? then surely giants get to strike long before cavalry fx, and spear/halberd of course....hydras too i'd assume
    And i guess cavalry units not fitted with long weapons will have no change, how about demigryph with halberds? weapons are long but they are swung up close....oh and i guess if we are now aking up rules based on what the models look like i guess we need to reset armor values for a bunch of units because balance and stats doesnt matter only your idea of what a model should be able to do based on looks right?
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    edited May 4

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    Wasn't the first example Questing Knights? They would have worse reach than the axe men with those horses in the way. About half the cavalry in this game don't have any reach weapons: orc boar boyz, reiksguard, dread knights, horned ones, etc.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,700

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    I would personally like such a change, but if lances are to get their realistic reach, then they should also get realistic melee stats after the charge which would certainly be around zombie levels as you would expect from 5 meter long sticks on mounts. Spears would also need a similar reach.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394

    The problem with just adjusting stats, either nerfing infantry or buffing cav, is that you still end up doing the same damage if you charge infantry into idle cavalry as you do to cav that are charging you in the face with lances. An axe charge should be effective vs idle/preoccupied cav but should not trade well head on into charging shock lances. It's not a problem that axes can damage cav, or that cav has too little MD or HP. What we need is to distinguish between the two scenarios above because idle/preoccupied cav should get punished if charged, while at the same time charging head on into charging shock cav with axes should still be a very bad idea with poor outcome for the axes.

    I'd actually argue that the damage dealt by infantry on a charge shouldn't vary regardless of whether they get counter charged. The reward for not getting counter charged should be defensive not offensive, as it is for every unit in the game currently. So, yeah the damage should be about the same regardless of the presence of absence of a counter charge and any change should reflect that. This is a non-issue.

    I'm also not sure why you focus on weapon lengths so much. I understand the point about intuitive interactions but lances are already functioning in a questionably realistic manner anyway, given they're being used for generic melee animations after the charge. The damage is a balance concern regardless of appeals to realism and this just shifts the focus from gameplay issues to interesting but doomed discussions about historical usage of weaponry in a fantasy game.

    The issue is infantry are doing too much damage on a charge to at least cavalry. That's resulted in cavalry getting massively outtraded by units that are far cheaper in an easily replicable way. At minimum this undercuts the pricing assumptions the game has previously been balanced around, and at worst it could remove some units from viability in multiplayer. Regardless of appeals to realism this is a problem.

    @Pocman You are correct simply comparing base hit chance one to one as I did isn't reflective of the actual difference or particularly useful. It was lazy on my part and I appreciate the correction, though @Bastilean beat you too it. :tongue:
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 649

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    I would personally like such a change, but if lances are to get their realistic reach, then they should also get realistic melee stats after the charge which would certainly be around zombie levels as you would expect from 5 meter long sticks on mounts. Spears would also need a similar reach.
    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 394
    RawSugar said:

    a few things:
    looking at the chaos roster the numbers are somehting like
    shield infantry : CB is ca 50% of MA
    GW infantry : CB is ca 67% of MA
    cavalry : CB is ca 100% of 'MA
    shock cavalry : CB is ca 200% of MA

    this seems like a nice progression.

    I'd also point out that reducing CB and increasing MA by halfthat amount would alleviate the countercharge matchup but not actually make it favorable for cavalry. the result is something like -20% charge damage and +20% sustained damage. I wouldnt have strong feelings either way, but for gameplay and aesthetics i agree w others that charges should be impactful also for infantry, if not as big damagemultipliers as they are for cavalry

    I do think you are undervaluing the extra models in an infantry unit in this comparison, specifically when considering base WS which differs by a substantially smaller number. 45 models dealing 126 damage on the charge, vs 90 models dealing 52 is a much thinner margin (about 1000 max damage difference), where accuracy is going to matter substantially in creating a differentiation in performance.

    A bit of numbers in the spoiler but on the charge you can assume that against GW and Shock Cav units you're hitting more than 50% of the time, with 90% as the absolute cap meaning super high CB hits the ceiling pretty easily.

    When charging Chaos knights hit 90% of the time against every infantry unit on the WoC roster, while the GW units hit 57%, 63%, and 81% percent of the time against the Chaos Knights on a per attack basis. CK max damage assuming all models attack is 5670 and MGW max damage is 4680. By hit rate you get 5103 vs 2668. However in practice the full unit doesn't engage in combat on the charge and if you assume the ratio of engagement is even this just improves the trade further for the GWs. If half of the models attack you get 2552 vs 1334. When considering 1 units costs a third of the price of the other the damage does seem to be a bit skewed.


    Considering the bugfix was allowing attacks that should have hit but weren't registering to be properly applied it does suggest that currently the accuracy increase is far more beneficial for infantry than cav.

    The change you suggest of lowering CB and raising MA would probably benefit cav if it was applied unilaterally since they'd lose almost no accuracy while the infantry hit rate would drop noticeably. It also wouldn't impact any of the physics interactions so apart from requiring a reevaluation of combat times for other unit classes based on the relative number of attacks needed to kill models this actually isn't a bad idea.

    Also while you are correct that this is in effect suggesting a nerf for infantry it is important to remember the context is in relation to a bugfix that provided a buff to infantry that the devs did not entirely expect. It's not just a request to nerf infantry because "MAH CAVALRY DON'T ERASE INFANTRY BY RUNNING AT THEM AND I'M MAD" it's noting a change that shifted balance in a substantial and at least partially unintended way and saying "this doesn't seem good".
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,830
    Most infantry is quite good now. Of course there are some classes that are too strong, like very cheap chaff and some that are a bit too weak/too easy to counter (such as the elite squishy specialist antiinfantry units like swordmasters), but for the most part I like how infantry works these days with the obvious exception of the case of using them to counter charge cavalry. Its a shame that good infantry had to come at the price of bad cavalry but CA will fix it.

    Charge bonus is very important on infantry and you should micro your infantry as much as cavalry, but since they are more durable than cavalry (in melee) its not often done. Having 1 shock infantry go down the infantry line cycle charging through your own units is very helpful but its not often seen.

    I think there could be further distinction between the types of infantry to promote this style of play, with shock infantry having distinctly higher charge with lower defense than standard "line infantry". For example the difference between longbeards GW and longbeards should be increased. GW variant having +5MA/-8MD with +10CB and losing charge defence would make it a much more interesting unit that promotes "dYNamIC GAmEpLAy".


    User_Clue said:



    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.

    sidenote: iirc in older TW games (like medieval II) they did actually switch weapons after the charge.

  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,160
    personally, the discussion about CB inf and cav rn is so murky that I have no energy to understand it anymore. I will just wait for Duck.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    Loupi_ said:

    Most infantry is quite good now. Of course there are some classes that are too strong, like very cheap chaff and some that are a bit too weak/too easy to counter (such as the elite squishy specialist antiinfantry units like swordmasters), but for the most part I like how infantry works these days with the obvious exception of the case of using them to counter charge cavalry. Its a shame that good infantry had to come at the price of bad cavalry but CA will fix it.

    Charge bonus is very important on infantry and you should micro your infantry as much as cavalry, but since they are more durable than cavalry (in melee) its not often done. Having 1 shock infantry go down the infantry line cycle charging through your own units is very helpful but its not often seen.

    I think there could be further distinction between the types of infantry to promote this style of play, with shock infantry having distinctly higher charge with lower defense than standard "line infantry". For example the difference between longbeards GW and longbeards should be increased. GW variant having +5MA/-8MD with +10CB and losing charge defence would make it a much more interesting unit that promotes "dYNamIC GAmEpLAy".

    sidenote: iirc in older TW games (like medieval II) they did actually switch weapons after the charge.

    Longbeard great weapons with high MA and CB... That would be called Hammerers.

    Side note: If cavalry get to switch weapons, it better be an active. I would be ok with that. I also want to be able to dismount so I can climb walls and beat the snot out of spearmen.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,007
    edited May 5

    RawSugar said:

    a few things:
    looking at the chaos roster the numbers are somehting like
    shield infantry : CB is ca 50% of MA
    GW infantry : CB is ca 67% of MA
    cavalry : CB is ca 100% of 'MA
    shock cavalry : CB is ca 200% of MA

    this seems like a nice progression.

    I'd also point out that reducing CB and increasing MA by halfthat amount would alleviate the countercharge matchup but not actually make it favorable for cavalry. the result is something like -20% charge damage and +20% sustained damage. I wouldnt have strong feelings either way, but for gameplay and aesthetics i agree w others that charges should be impactful also for infantry, if not as big damagemultipliers as they are for cavalry

    I do think you are undervaluing the extra models in an infantry unit in this comparison, specifically when considering base WS which differs by a substantially smaller number. 45 models dealing 126 damage on the charge, vs 90 models dealing 52 is a much thinner margin (about 1000 max damage difference), where accuracy is going to matter substantially in creating a differentiation in performance.

    A bit of numbers in the spoiler but on the charge you can assume that against GW and Shock Cav units you're hitting more than 50% of the time, with 90% as the absolute cap meaning super high CB hits the ceiling pretty easily.

    When charging Chaos knights hit 90% of the time against every infantry unit on the WoC roster, while the GW units hit 57%, 63%, and 81% percent of the time against the Chaos Knights on a per attack basis. CK max damage assuming all models attack is 5670 and MGW max damage is 4680. By hit rate you get 5103 vs 2668. However in practice the full unit doesn't engage in combat on the charge and if you assume the ratio of engagement is even this just improves the trade further for the GWs. If half of the models attack you get 2552 vs 1334. When considering 1 units costs a third of the price of the other the damage does seem to be a bit skewed.


    Considering the bugfix was allowing attacks that should have hit but weren't registering to be properly applied it does suggest that currently the accuracy increase is far more beneficial for infantry than cav.

    The change you suggest of lowering CB and raising MA would probably benefit cav if it was applied unilaterally since they'd lose almost no accuracy while the infantry hit rate would drop noticeably. It also wouldn't impact any of the physics interactions so apart from requiring a reevaluation of combat times for other unit classes based on the relative number of attacks needed to kill models this actually isn't a bad idea.

    Also while you are correct that this is in effect suggesting a nerf for infantry it is important to remember the context is in relation to a bugfix that provided a buff to infantry that the devs did not entirely expect. It's not just a request to nerf infantry because "MAH CAVALRY DON'T ERASE INFANTRY BY RUNNING AT THEM AND I'M MAD" it's noting a change that shifted balance in a substantial and at least partially unintended way and saying "this doesn't seem good".
    infantry getting 20% sustained damage and -20% charge damage would be an overall buff to infantry, -25% charge and +12,5% sustained might be more balanced, but would require lowering the percentages (charge of MA) to 25%/33% making infantry charge rather pitiful.
    imo the only thing affecting infantry more than cavalry is the bug made infantry lose their attack, once that is cleared as you say the higher number of models mean infantry do a lot of damage even if their charge bonus is much lower already.
    Vs marauders its mostly a matter of AP vs armor; even chosen GW lose to GW marauders gold for gold.
    This is as it should be , infantry is slower but stronger and supposed to be but shifting that strength further to sustained would work as well.

    It should be mentioned several cav units are good enough to win the exchange though. and when 120 armor units win the exchange vs AP units that means they win vs nonAP by a lot. if you want cavalry to beat AP charge infantry decisively on the charge you are also asking for cavalry to onesidedly annihilate nonAP cavalry with near total impunity. that seems extremely problematic to me. somewhat disfavored against GW infantry, somewhat favored vs nonAP and favored vs nonAP chaff is the balance now and it is more or less balanced albeit skewed in cavalrys favor as evidence by how often cavalry is chosen vs elite ifantry
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,443
    Loupi_ said:

    Most infantry is quite good now. Of course there are some classes that are too strong, like very cheap chaff and some that are a bit too weak/too easy to counter (such as the elite squishy specialist antiinfantry units like swordmasters), but for the most part I like how infantry works these days with the obvious exception of the case of using them to counter charge cavalry. Its a shame that good infantry had to come at the price of bad cavalry but CA will fix it.

    Charge bonus is very important on infantry and you should micro your infantry as much as cavalry, but since they are more durable than cavalry (in melee) its not often done. Having 1 shock infantry go down the infantry line cycle charging through your own units is very helpful but its not often seen.

    I think there could be further distinction between the types of infantry to promote this style of play, with shock infantry having distinctly higher charge with lower defense than standard "line infantry". For example the difference between longbeards GW and longbeards should be increased. GW variant having +5MA/-8MD with +10CB and losing charge defence would make it a much more interesting unit that promotes "dYNamIC GAmEpLAy".




    User_Clue said:



    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.

    sidenote: iirc in older TW games (like medieval II) they did actually switch weapons after the charge.

    Exactly this, this is what I am trying to tell you too. Infantry don't need nerfs as such, the only glaring issue is the gw charge not being notably affected by a shock cav counter charge, possibly because often as few as 5-6 infantry models gets a knockback when 45 shock lances clash head to head. I realise infantry fans here are allergic to the word knockdown but it's the most elegant solution here as it will allow infantry to not get nerfs while still protecting charging cav only from some return damage. Not all. Knockback are fine now for braced units with cdvl, but not for countercharging units just. It just needs tweaks, not some imaginary transformation into old stegadon levels (which cav never had, and cav knockback was never abusive at all).

    I want to charge Grail Knights with my white lions as much as the next man but if the grails get a clean charge on me as I move in I am the first to admit I got outplayed and sent my wl into a bad engagement. I don't expect to win that and neither should anyone... Its not a realistic expectation.

    personally, the discussion about CB inf and cav rn is so murky that I have no energy to understand it anymore. I will just wait for Duck.

    Amen. Save us from our misery duck!
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,007
    edited May 5
    this isnt the cavalry forums its the balancing forums.
    Cavalry is already more commonly used than GW infantry and certainly more than hightier GW infantry.
    If cavalry wins head to head charges vs GW infantry it will get basically no damage from nonAP infantry in head to head charges
    Allowing infantry to hit back on the charge balanced the game, cavalry gets mobility, infantry gets durability and power

    Im not opposed as such to cavalry winning the charge, but if your aim is to balance the game you must give infantry some balancing buff. the most immediate, obvious buff is to give GW infantry charge defense vs large, but it could be a number of things, such as higher MA
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,271
    edited May 5
    All the QQers and whiners want are a buff to cav, thing is they decided to waste 40 pages of garbage just to make it sounds "legit" its one of the more sadder epic fail in the forum tbh

    Next thing we gonna see r reavers destroying gors in hands on melee.

    It really more of those green players who r so bad that the inf gets to choose the engagement, despite cav having double to triple the speed. Inf gets 0 pursue value obviously since they cant catch crap anyway unless ure like wardancers chasing dwfs. Then again not like these free features ever gets taken value into, u know the usual elf philosophy(no freebies = need buff).

    They r even trying to sell savorks vs wild riders, i mean they r basically trying to kill duck lol.

    But of coz they wouldnt have the berries to try emp knights vs gors of the cheaper yet vs more expensive inf than savorks. Not even playing that game right lol, shouldve tried selling dryads vs hex wraiths in the first place, that would be more convincing to duck
    Post edited by yst on
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,271
    Moral of the story, dont be an elf and waste communitys time on garbage like this that goes on for 40,50,60 pages.

    Next time u want something for urself to ruin others, simply state it clearly.

    I want wild riders to destroy savage ork biguns in melee

    Now, how hard is that? Only took 1 post lol not 50 pages
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 509
    edited May 5
    It’s not just wild riders(and they aren’t bad) cold ones are pretty bad so are black knights with lance. Chaos knights are supposed to be elite cavalry and personally still suck. Reiksguard serve almost no purpose.

    I actually hate that wild riders where used as the example in those tests they’re still a good cavalry unit. I’d also argue WE vs GS heavily favors GS so also isn’t a great example.

    It’s also not all cavalry is bad for example demigriffs still are threat even to something like chosen gw.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,969
    edited May 5
    yst said:

    Moral of the story, dont be an elf and waste communitys time on garbage like this that goes on for 40,50,60 pages.

    Next time u want something for urself to ruin others, simply state it clearly.

    I want wild riders to destroy savage ork biguns in melee

    Now, how hard is that? Only took 1 post lol not 50 pages

    Its very strange for you to assume that this only affects elven units, i strongly think you dont understand what is being discussed here if that is what you wrote.

    If you think 550g savage orcs should out trage wild riders on a mutual charge ok that is your view, but to say this is elven bias at work is another of your low shots.

    I disagree with the above and also in regards to other shock cav.
    Post edited by Lotus_Moon on
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,456
    edited May 5
    One small point to consider when it comes to the interaction between infantry and shock cavalry. Shock cavalry's charge value is so high that it often puts them into overkill in terms of hit-chance for at least part of the charge time. The more modest charge values of infantry meanwhile do not ever get that high.

    Now the shock cav is also getting a damage bonus which will help in some matchups, but could also be overkill for the first few seconds in other matchups.

    So what this means in practice is that in terms of hit-rate, it is as if the charge value is not really as high as the number states for at least part of the charge time. Thus the difference in charge value is narrower than the numbers indicate. Then add in the fact that shock cav often have lower melee defense than infantry.

    Here is a graph to illustrate the point:



    Edit: Just to clarify, that's Chaos Warrior with great weapons
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,969
    Jman5 said:

    One small point to consider when it comes to the interaction between infantry and shock cavalry. Shock cavalry's charge value is so high that it often puts them into overkill in terms of hit-chance for at least part of the charge time. The more modest charge values of infantry meanwhile do not ever get that high.

    Now the shock cav is also getting a damage bonus which will help in some matchups, but could also be overkill for the first few seconds in other matchups.

    So what this means in practice is that in terms of hit-rate, it is as if the charge value is not really as high as the number states for at least part of the charge time. Thus the difference in charge value is narrower than the numbers indicate. Then add in the fact that shock cav often have lower melee defense than infantry.

    Here is a graph to illustrate the point:



    Edit: Just to clarify, that's Chaos Warrior with great weapons

    It does mean more hits though, to the point that 90% of attacks should be hitting, so while they do overkill much more hit also thus should result in more dmg. I mean interaction in pervious patch was fine apart for yst and sugar apparently
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,969

    It’s not just wild riders(and they aren’t bad) cold ones are pretty bad so are black knights with lance. Chaos knights are supposed to be elite cavalry and personally still suck. Reiksguard serve almost no purpose.

    I actually hate that wild riders where used as the example in those tests they’re still a good cavalry unit. I’d also argue WE vs GS heavily favors GS so also isn’t a great example.

    It’s also not all cavalry is bad for example demigriffs still are threat even to something like chosen gw.

    nah demis get smashed vs normal ones also let alone chosen
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,443
    Jman5 said:

    One small point to consider when it comes to the interaction between infantry and shock cavalry. Shock cavalry's charge value is so high that it often puts them into overkill in terms of hit-chance for at least part of the charge time. The more modest charge values of infantry meanwhile do not ever get that high.

    Now the shock cav is also getting a damage bonus which will help in some matchups, but could also be overkill for the first few seconds in other matchups.

    So what this means in practice is that in terms of hit-rate, it is as if the charge value is not really as high as the number states for at least part of the charge time. Thus the difference in charge value is narrower than the numbers indicate. Then add in the fact that shock cav often have lower melee defense than infantry.

    Here is a graph to illustrate the point:



    Edit: Just to clarify, that's Chaos Warrior with great weapons

    Overkill and max hit chance affects cav for sure but none of these has changed and work the same as they always did. The cav charge damage is fine, its does what it used to do and is lethal enough to be rewarding but not abusive. Only problem is that infantry counter charge is even more lethal on a mutual charge, that's what is changed and what needs fixing....
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,271


    Its very strange for you to assume that this only affects elven units, i strongly think you dont understand what is being discussed here if that is what you wrote.

    If you think 550g savage orcs should outrage wild riders on a mutal charge ok that is your view, but to say this is elven bias at work is another of your low shots.

    I disagree with the above and also in regards to other shock cav.

    Its very embarrassing they even deliberately choose the non shielded wild riders, to lower their def as much as possible for a nice savork charge. Makes u wonder why none of the bad elf balancers keeps avoiding why they would rather choose a $1100 or $1200 wild riders and happily not touch $1150 reiksguard

    More than happy to do $850 emp knights vs $550 gors, go on, happy to cycle charge that, if only any of them dare to post the results to end this 60 pages of trash elf rants.

    Duck must be laughing himself to death when this whole pointless of a discussion, that lasted weeks is based on some core failures of a test that based the entire discussion on savork vs wild riders.

    When it could have been
    wild vs flaggelants
    wild vs nehek war
    wild vs pilgrims
    wild vs red skinks
    wild vs frikking the entire range of med inf

    Better yet, it couldve been reiksguard of $1150 cheaper than $1200 wild riders
    rieks vs savork
    rieks vs gors
    rieks vs rangers
    rieks vs frikking entire range

    But no lol, it has to be an elf cav
    And they do it better lol, they choose the unshielded one
    If u go for helf right, they will choose the unshielded silverhelms for it

    Its also cute they wanna try wild vs savork but doesnt dare to do a dragon prince vs savork big un in cycle charging
    Why do they not use unshielded wild riders vs red crested skink, plenty of options
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,830
    yst said:


    Its very strange for you to assume that this only affects elven units, i strongly think you dont understand what is being discussed here if that is what you wrote.

    If you think 550g savage orcs should outrage wild riders on a mutal charge ok that is your view, but to say this is elven bias at work is another of your low shots.

    I disagree with the above and also in regards to other shock cav.

    Its very embarrassing they even deliberately choose the non shielded wild riders, to lower their def as much as possible for a nice savork charge. Makes u wonder why none of the bad elf balancers keeps avoiding why they would rather choose a $1100 or $1200 wild riders and happily not touch $1150 reiksguard

    More than happy to do $850 emp knights vs $550 gors, go on, happy to cycle charge that, if only any of them dare to post the results to end this 60 pages of trash elf rants.

    Duck must be laughing himself to death when this whole pointless of a discussion, that lasted weeks is based on some core failures of a test that based the entire discussion on savork vs wild riders.

    When it could have been
    wild vs flaggelants
    wild vs nehek war
    wild vs pilgrims
    wild vs red skinks
    wild vs frikking the entire range of med inf

    Better yet, it couldve been reiksguard of $1150 cheaper than $1200 wild riders
    rieks vs savork
    rieks vs gors
    rieks vs rangers
    rieks vs frikking entire range

    But no lol, it has to be an elf cav
    And they do it better lol, they choose the unshielded one
    If u go for helf right, they will choose the unshielded silverhelms for it

    Its also cute they wanna try wild vs savork but doesnt dare to do a dragon prince vs savork big un in cycle charging
    Why do they not use unshielded wild riders vs red crested skink, plenty of options
    lol we tested almost all of those...
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,443
    edited May 5
    You clearly didn't understand the setup of the test nor really looked at it.

    We used both shielded and unshielded WR in the first test, both trade horribly. In the repeated test we used unshielded because smaller gold diff and more shock character on the cheaper version. WR vs flags was tested, flags lose but trade up for value.

    In general damage types were matched so non-ap cav vs low armour inf and non-ap inf vs low armour cav so that neither of the units lack- or waste their ap. The only exception was dp vs cwgw where the dp lack ap, this one we tested in addition to the other tests because some claimed they would do better than QK because of higher cb. They did a little better but still bad.

    Kotbs were chosen over reiks because they are more shock oriented. QK were the suboptimal pick but there are no good ap cav alternatives. We tested demi lances too and they did worse because few models. Most ap cav have less cb or fewer models or bvl otherwise.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,271
    Lol so much talks, when the main selling point is savork vs wild riders


    Someone needs to teach these elves how to beat nehek warrior with emp knights. They don’t seem to know how to play tge game with cav
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 509


    nah demis get smashed vs normal ones also let alone chosen

    I meant if they had spearmen with shields support to charge cycle but I actually tested it vs GW chosen it’s to close but vs regular chosen they win.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,007


    nah demis get smashed vs normal ones also let alone chosen

    I meant if they had spearmen with shields support to charge cycle but I actually tested it vs GW chosen it’s to close but vs regular chosen they win.
    did you control the cavalry and was this vs ai? AI likes to brace despite it being near useless without charge defense. control the infantry and you see the difference in power. shielded chosen still lose/disfavored tho but give them a few chevrons to even out cost and they win as well if not as much as GW and ofc much less than halberd
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 509
    RawSugar said:



    did you control the cavalry and was this vs ai? AI likes to brace despite it being near useless without charge defense. control the infantry and you see the difference in power. shielded chosen still lose/disfavored tho but give them a few chevrons to even out cost and they win as well if not as much as GW and ofc much less than halberd

    Yes vs AI that’s why I said to close vs GW chosen I won but vs a actual player I would’ve just had demigriffs get focused also spearmen probably would’ve taken a charge to. Not worth the trade.

    Vs shielded chosen demis won pretty easily again with spearmen support. This one probably worth the trade if you bring regrowth.

    Halberd Chosen probably do better than GW so didn’t bother testing.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 4,700
    User_Clue said:

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    I would personally like such a change, but if lances are to get their realistic reach, then they should also get realistic melee stats after the charge which would certainly be around zombie levels as you would expect from 5 meter long sticks on mounts. Spears would also need a similar reach.
    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.
    If we want to be accurate, they didn't change to a sword. They dropped the lance. Which means, only one charge. Per game.

    So... let's not go with pure realism.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,160
    When the heck did gw infantry become rarer than shock cav?
    RawSugar said:

    this isnt the cavalry forums its the balancing forums.
    Cavalry is already more commonly used than GW infantry and certainly more than hightier GW infantry.
    If cavalry wins head to head charges vs GW infantry it will get basically no damage from nonAP infantry in head to head charges
    Allowing infantry to hit back on the charge balanced the game, cavalry gets mobility, infantry gets durability and power

    Im not opposed as such to cavalry winning the charge, but if your aim is to balance the game you must give infantry some balancing buff. the most immediate, obvious buff is to give GW infantry charge defense vs large, but it could be a number of things, such as higher MA

    Pocman said:

    User_Clue said:

    RawSugar said:

    its really funny watching ppl bend over backwards trying to convince themselves they arent buffing cavalry/nerfing infantry but merely tweaking a specific interaction^^
    On a sidenote would cavalry countercharging higher mass units similarly deny them their charge bonus, or is it only infantry that are somehow incapable of charging horses, but not other large units?

    How about instead you figure out if a 4 meter weapon for some reason is longer than a 1 meter weapon and if this could somehow prevent the axeman from landing any hits before he dies?
    I would personally like such a change, but if lances are to get their realistic reach, then they should also get realistic melee stats after the charge which would certainly be around zombie levels as you would expect from 5 meter long sticks on mounts. Spears would also need a similar reach.
    Well sure a lance isn't very good up close, but then again, the only reason they use them is because CA didn't make a system for them to switch to swords. In reality, every Cav with a lance is also carrying a sword and they would ditch the lance after the charge. This is not only historically accurate, but it's also how those units worked in Table top. In fact even Questing knights and demis halberds carried a normal sword and shield, but that's not represented in TW because units don't switch weapons.
    If we want to be accurate, they didn't change to a sword. They dropped the lance. Which means, only one charge. Per game.

    So... let's not go with pure realism.
    realism wise, after the charge they would go back to the line and pick up the next lance or the knights at the back that still have their lance be the front for the next charge.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,035
    Hound sized units for a long time but maybe moreso now(?) are especially good at dealing damage on the charge. I wonder if instead of a bug the basic interface they are looking for is some kind of max number of attacks a unit can make on the charge in a given amount of space.
Sign In or Register to comment.