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

Bandaid fix suggestion for Cav vs Infantry Interaction

1235713

Comments

  • PippingtonPippington Registered Users Posts: 2,291
    edited July 2021

    @pippington I agree that countercharging should be the best move for gw infantry, but it's a move of desperation and "short handweapon should not trade up in a head on clash with shock lances" because that's basically what we're trying to simulate but we have to do it without any first strike mechanics or true weapon length mechanics, or too much knockbacks (because I don't think ca would dare).

    A great axe isn't short, and it seems like a pretty good weapon for trying to kill a horse. My intuition for what should happen when 120 crazy guys with 2h axes charge at 45 charging knights with lances is that 45 of them get skewered, but the remaining 75 are going to do some serious damage. It's a 'desperation move' in that they're not defending themselves from a big burst of damage, but not in that they're just doomed to go out without achieving anything.

    In terms of genuine short hand weapon vs lance situations, I think it's still pretty possible to run over Swordsmen or Clanrats with KotBS all day. The only hand weapon units that compare to the GW units are very fantasy-fied ones like SOBUs.

    I also think it's dangerous to overgeneralise here, because there is just as much weird and wacky variation between cav units in Warhammer as in the other unit categories. Some shock cav have lances; others have great weapons or short cavalry spears or clubs. Before the end of the year we're likely to have others with crab claws and whips. Even now we've got cav units whose charge attack is animated as using their mount's forehead. So I think the argument that shock cav should get some head start in getting their damage in is a bit weak.

    I do think lances are poorly defined as a weapon type in TW:WH though... with most infantry weapon types, the weapon gives you a fair idea of the unit's function. With lances, the only constant is a big charge bonus (which other cav also have to varying degrees), and otherwise they run the gamut from anti-large to anti-infantry and AP to non-AP. I wouldn't be against CA experimenting to make lances specifically a more recognisable weapon type. (This is true for monstrous infantry weapon types too... what does a monstrous infantry great weapon do? well if you're a kroxigor, BvI, but if you're a minotaur, BvL...)

    I also think you're right about shock playing a big part in this, and I think that's one reason that the original pacing changes are still playing a really significant role. Shock cav should not be trying to trade HP in a cost-efficient battle of attrition; that's not their home turf. They should be delivering shocks that break morale (a stat where infantry have no advantage) and then running disorganised formations down in the chaos that ensues. In WH1 that was very possible, but in WH2 the only infantry you can really break immediately off a charge are things like skavenslaves and peasant mobs. I don't know how you do anything with that without resurrecting people's complaints about the pace of games however.

    EDIT: Note that weapon length does exist in game. I don't know how it interacts with the timing of attacks, or where on a cavalry model with a mount part and rider part it's measured from. But it definitely exists and it definitely has a strong impact on the number of attacks you can get from the rear ranks of a unit. Forsaken went from great to meh on account of their weirdly high weapon length getting reduced to a more reasonable number.


    Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping

  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 758
    edited July 2021

    Let's assume -I'm not sure it's really the case, but as example- that on mutual charge, cavalry models on the rear might not land attacks because front models hinder them. But infantry models on the rear might get to attack (either because they are able to clump more, or because the first ranks are thrown in the air clearing the space). It would be an example of the outcome of an engagement not following unit card expectations, without necessarily any bug, just a big difference in aggregate behavior.

    I don't think the outcome of engagements not being entirely determinable from the unit card is a problem. Or to put it another way: the game could do with communicating more of the stuff that is not listed on unit cards, but unit cards are already dense with information, and presenting more info in a way that isn't intimidating and baffling to new players is a problem I'm glad it's not my job to solve. But people shouldn't get up in arms when a factor that's not on the card turns out to be important. Players should expect that if they want to get to know a unit in detail they need to test it in actual play.
    oh I didn't want to say the unit card should predict the outcome, it was a simplistic way to label the "work as intended" state and taking someone else's expression. Of course experience shapes expectations for all the parameters that are not displayed. It's just that, if something like the proportion of models supposed to attack varies wildly depending on the circumstances, it doesn't feel like the "clean" state from which you can start balancing through stats. It's not as bad as attacks not registering at collision, it's not a bug per se, but it can make the game frustrating. With the following examples:

    - if infantry with about 0 charge bonus deals much more damage (+60-90%) to cav on mutual charge instead of bracing (Jman5 test),
    - If an infantry unit deals much more damage on mutual charge to cavalry than to another infantry with similar defense stats (to be tested),
    - or deals much more damage to charging cavalry than to stationary cavalry (to be tested),
    it can be very very counter-intuitive, not sure the "clean" state has been reached to properly rebalance stats. It's doable and the players would end up adapting, but it might not be very healthy or stable if any small cohesion change completely changes the whole game again. That's what I meant with models working "as intended" still leading to weird stuff.

  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 758
    edited July 2021

    I also think you're right about shock playing a big part in this, and I think that's one reason that the original pacing changes are still playing a really significant role. Shock cav should not be trying to trade HP in a cost-efficient battle of attrition; that's not their home turf. They should be delivering shocks that break morale (a stat where infantry have no advantage) and then running disorganised formations down in the chaos that ensues. In WH1 that was very possible, but in WH2 the only infantry you can really break immediately off a charge are things like skavenslaves and peasant mobs. I don't know how you do anything with that without resurrecting people's complaints about the pace of games however.

    on the design side of things, I think you could have overall slow pace with occasional bursts, after all a spell or breath can already wipe out a unit in a second. A well placed cav charge should be able to do the same, as long as it is not repeatable often, thus more devastating charges at the expense of cycle charging (a charge bonus vs rotation speed trade-off). That's why I don't mind heavy cav losing models when pulling out, if only it had better charge damage.

    On the receiving end, there is some tweaking potential with the three damage-time-morale response functions. The 4 seconds curve could be steeper, leading to a higher morale penalty for shock damage in comparison to long term damage.

    But all that just for game 3, hopefully
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    edited July 2021
    Well I can't say I agree with the first part, lances in my intuitive image of shock cav hammering into 90 unarmoured guys with 2 handed axes would impale the first row into the second row and impale/knock down them too, but lose their lance in the process.

    Anyways, that's images and not gameplay. In terms of gameplay and archetype unit types, we would roughly have spears as nonap antilarge, halberds as ap antilarge and gw as generalist ap. The generalist would not be equipped to receive a charge in any way, but would a good damage dealer if you can enter melee without being lanced down first. They would also be very good counters to elite spears/halberds.

    That's how I see the archetype and I like to use for example white lions as damage dealers to cav vs bret and emp, but I don't expect them to do that job without support from spears or silver helms.
    Post edited by Disposable Hero on
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited July 2021
    Fedakyn said:

    >

    Cost value is very critical, if not the point of, unit balance so I do feel the need to mention you keep thinking 25% is the "premium" paid for mobility of shock cav vs ap infantry at similar tiers. That this would lead to a state of balance...I actually think would be reasonably fair, and in a straight on engagement I do think the value returned with that stipulation would create a reasonable type of balance. A bit infantry favored but fair. The real concern is that that is just not how it plays out right now. As an example to illustrate the concern a unit of black orcs crushes a unit of great stag knights with say around 40% health remaining.

    Stag knights cost 130% what black orcs cost so, using your preferred cost metrics, that should be an even-ish trade. One the black orc could as part of a larger battle turn into a win by using the cost savings to have cheap infantry or support to back them up and create an advantage, or the cavalry could "win" by isolating a better target then such infantry with there mobility. The differences are reasonable enough that as elite staples both could shine in the right army.

    I will say that from my position the default of black orcs, being Isolated by a more expensive cavalry unit (and not anti large) gaining 25% value in that engagement does seem a little wrong to me as the old spears, cavalry, swords rock paper scissors of melee is turned a bit lopsided by this..this is a bit outdated and this game adds a lot of nuance to unit types but for elite damages dealers like this the

    The issue there is your choice of units; black orcs are fairly heavily charge invested and great stags pay for vanguard, 90 speed and shield...you also need to subtract the 25% from the cavalry so black orcs are actually a little expensive...its still a pretty even fight. try it vs a unit like horned ones and cavalry wins the fight.
    In older iterations of TW there was also a different relation between ranged and fast melee, ranged was actually able to defeat cavalry if you didnt maneuver to avoid them, at least in some games. Improving cavalry charges and reducing their hitpoint for some unit could achieve a similar balance but some people just want cavalry bonuses which wouldnt be balanced; 25% is not too great a cost to reverse the many vulnerabilities of infantry.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited July 2021

    @Pippington thanks for the nice summary. I would add that even if everything works "as intended" on a model vs model basis, the interaction between multi-model units can completely change the outcome.

    Let's assume -I'm not sure it's really the case, but as example- that on mutual charge, cavalry models on the rear might not land attacks because front models hinder them. But infantry models on the rear might get to attack (either because they are able to clump more, or because the first ranks are thrown in the air clearing the space). It would be an example of the outcome of an engagement not following unit card expectations, without necessarily any bug, just a big difference in aggregate behavior.

    I don't mind questing knights losing on the charge to bestigors, but wild differences in the number of models that get to attack on the charge could still be something worth studying before going to the stat balancing round. Otherwise you could get counterintuitive effects, like buffing the mass of cavalry only increasing the roller-coaster effect leading to more infantry models landing an attack.

    in countercharges both cavalry and infantry get to attack with close to half the models. this is balanced. Its not counterintuitive its what the stats tell you should happen, unless you think higher numbers shouldnt mean more attacks but just more vulnerability to aoe which....isnt how the game works.
    I could see some cavalry units getting charge defense from infantry contingent on charging the unit rather than being braced - but it should come at a price same as charge defense which costs about 11 melee stats/22 CB
    Post edited by RawSugar on
  • FedakynFedakyn Registered Users Posts: 31
    edited July 2021
    RawSugar said:

    Fedakyn said:

    >

    Cost value is very critical, if not the point of, unit balance so I do feel the need to mention you keep thinking 25% is the "premium" paid for mobility of shock cav vs ap infantry at similar tiers. That this would lead to a state of balance...I actually think would be reasonably fair, and in a straight on engagement I do think the value returned with that stipulation would create a reasonable type of balance. A bit infantry favored but fair. The real concern is that that is just not how it plays out right now. As an example to illustrate the concern a unit of black orcs crushes a unit of great stag knights with say around 40% health remaining.

    Stag knights cost 130% what black orcs cost so, using your preferred cost metrics, that should be an even-ish trade. One the black orc could as part of a larger battle turn into a win by using the cost savings to have cheap infantry or support to back them up and create an advantage, or the cavalry could "win" by isolating a better target then such infantry with there mobility. The differences are reasonable enough that as elite staples both could shine in the right army.

    I will say that from my position the default of black orcs, being Isolated by a more expensive cavalry unit (and not anti large) gaining 25% value in that engagement does seem a little wrong to me as the old spears, cavalry, swords rock paper scissors of melee is turned a bit lopsided by this..this is a bit outdated and this game adds a lot of nuance to unit types but for elite damages dealers like this the

    The issue there is your choice of units; black orcs are fairly heavily charge invested and great stags pay for vanguard, 90 speed and shield...you also need to subtract the 25% from the cavalry so black orcs are actually a little expensive...its still a pretty even fight. try it vs a unit like horned ones and cavalry wins the fight.
    In older iterations of TW there was also a different relation between ranged and fast melee, ranged was actually able to defeat cavalry if you didnt maneuver to avoid them, at least in some games. Either way 25% is not too great a cost to reverse the many vulnerabilities of infantry.

    I'd still say the stags test is pretty crazy the Black orc being worth 2,500 gold worth of stag knights in open engagements is pretty nuts even if stag knights have more ancillary benefits then some other elite cav and weakened black orcs being worth a bit less to be fair then their full remaining hp value indicates.

    but to add a few more examples with the infantry side 25% target:

    Grail knight I just tested loosing with 44% remaining to black orcs
    Dragon princes vs black orcs the black orcs have r 56% hp remaining

    Black orcs are worth a ton more then 25% in a lot of cases i think....

    But maybe they are just better GW elites then the rest...say I try Marauder champions

    beat dragon princes with 25% left...overperforming mauraders
    Grail knights Win! with 5% left... and hit the 25% premium number
    Great stag knights loose, but this was close, could see it going either way.

    Its a lots closer, around that 25% anyway though norsca GW are not exactly strong right now

    After running through more runs it I'd say good GW units are really performing way better then 25% and ok tier GW are performing up but around that 25 % mark you like. If the 25% is something you really want to stick to you probably are going to want to take this case by case (some GW may need to be adjusted a lot though) and maybe slightly buff cavalry but I would say your seeing to the scenario you want in a number of cases even now. I'll be honest running more tests makes me think the results depend a lot on the specific units tested, and the results look reasonable to terrible it seems on a pretty case by case basis so the fix may require a lot of specific tweaks for this objective.

    In general though running through this I feel more certain that while this formula will function, and arguably better then last year's standard too i admit, this infantry sided melee world keeps feeling like a bad idea; 25% is a really big deal in this dynamic and I don't think its actually balanced, I respect you position Its just not the fair world I think I really do want.

    Ok so I disagree with Sword infantry being fundamentally a unit type of vulnerabilities that needs to over-perform in all melee to make up for it. This messes up the dynamics of spears and sort of creates a world where swords just by default win. Infantry in general is much more important than DPS anyway. They are your army's anchor unless you are running a pure kite build (detailed range dynamics I'm tabling here though). The HP, numbers, and durability for their cost inherently make them the core of your strength, if they trade OK your already winning in a lot of ways. You are protecting your range options, shielding your monsters and monstrous infantry with bodies., providing spear-lines and safe places for your mobility to go to. Infantry with shields will make ranged attack often a value loss to engage, the most durable infantry make the core many lords grind-y death blob. There is a lot positive here and trading evenly with cav and better with monsters would already be more positives. If you play vampire pirates, wide army Dwarves or any grindy blob this core value is apparent very quickly. Heck when infantry traded poorly with cav they still provided around 30% of the spending in a typical MP tournament Bretonian build with cavalry only 45% and that is the most cav heavy faction in the game. I will counter my own argument here to add that infantry being a high spend in armies out of necessity does not make them good. But the point stands they are very valuable even when they were trading very poorly vs mobility. I agree still that trading moderately upwards vs cav does lead to a functional game balance, but i do have to disagree with the formulation that for value infantry relies on positive trades vs cavalry and would need that to be viable.

    As a second note, ranged in Warhammer can very much counter cavalry. This i will actually strongly contest. Because they can accrue value against cavalry and the larger models so much faster then with infantry, more expensive heavy cavalry is much more of a liability then almost any infantry against ranged heavy factions. They just rely a bit on combined arms to allow that value through as it does need defending, but it is competitively proven that this works particularly well vs cavalry cores. There is a reason Bretonia relies on battle pilgrims and cheap cav vs skaven, or has such a bad matchup vs vampire pirates and, well, gunpowder factions in general, as any strong cavalry in those instances is very risky, if you can protect ranged with a anti large and some cheap mass the value ranged gets can be extreme. Even breached defenses often see ranged pay for itself and more. And unlike monsters or chariots you cant push through and disrupt as fast making the dynamic even more challenging then for other large type factions that have chariots and monsters. I'd really put ranged balance to the side before discussing core melee balance anyway; that introduces a ton of combined arms variables and will basically make this discussion impossible with any accuracy as what counters what is going to get very muddy, suffice to say a ranged vs cavalry debate is not going to give anyone a definitive answer as to what counters what as it definitely works both ways. And I just can't concede that infantry is vulnerable to ranged and cavalry is good vs ranged is a reasonable conceit.

    We may disagree further but I've said my piece. I do understand the desire for infantry to come to the fore and why it has benefits. Its just not the balance I see as best and I hope you can understand why I'd argue that too.

    Post edited by Fedakyn on
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 758
    just tried another fun one: marauders GW and empire knights mutually charging, then marauders charging and knights standing still. The knights receive twice as much damage from countercharging marauders rather than standing still.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,995

    just tried another fun one: marauders GW and empire knights mutually charging, then marauders charging and knights standing still. The knights receive twice as much damage from countercharging marauders rather than standing still.

    this is the part i don't get why do counter charging recive more damage.
    does the models go deeper in to the block infantry and thus getting surrounded ?
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited July 2021
    @Fedakyn
    These choices are also off; dragon princes are armored and nonAP, while marauders have medium armor, grail knights are antilarge and nonAP.
    I also dont know how you do your test because DP vs marauder GW was very even. and 25% means the fight will be even, winner will be at less than 20% hp and depending on particular unit and RNG might be either one.
    It does seem like GW infantry generally performs really well on the countercharge. I'd be fine with improving GW MA and reducing their CB.

    And its not infantry sided world. find a few battles online or join a few QBs you will find that infantry is NOT where the majority of funds are used, often cavalry gets used more. The infantry that does see use is infantry functioning like you describe, ie meatshields/chaff. elite cavalry generally trades favorably with chaff and with those there's the kind of dynamic you describe. that does not and should not extend to elite infantry, or to GW infantry in general.
    Slow melee is more than just an enabler of ranged, they are fighting forces in their own right that have strong vulnerabilities to a lot of the units fast melee are strong against.
    Movement should come at a cost, the suggestion that fast melee should get the move for free is just a complete departure from any attempt at creating a balanced game. you CANT put ranged aside in this discussion, because that is who infantry is vulnerable to, particularly skirmish ranged, in the same way antilarge pose a problem for cavalry.
    If kirmish and ranged wasnt a thing there should still be a premium on move.

    cannons are strong against cavalry, but most ranged are much stronger vs infantry than cavalry and will get off many more shots, certainly if we are talking elite infantry. chaff is more complicated but again elite cavalry isalready favored against chaff.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    On the debate about shooting cav I think cav face more challenges from ranged fire even if they can also be good at shutting it down. Being large is rough Vs ranged.

    Separately on the tests I agree very unclear what to make of the effects of counter charging on damage acceleration. It could make sense as a natural dynamic (more models of both sides making contact) or could be evidence of a bug.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited July 2021
    eumaies said:

    On the debate about shooting cav I think cav face more challenges from ranged fire even if they can also be good at shutting it down. Being large is rough Vs ranged.

    you think chaos knights are more in danger from ranged in general than chosen GW?
    Most infantry units are extremely vulnerable to ranged. so much in fact that you dont see them very often. cavalry can reach ranged in les than half the time, even stuff like higher hitpoint pr entity vs cannons doesnt undo that - unless you are comparing firing on an elite unit with firing on chaff. but again thats not really much of an issue since cavalry beats chaff unless we are talking AL chaff which is beaten by anything nonlarge...
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,215

    just tried another fun one: marauders GW and empire knights mutually charging, then marauders charging and knights standing still. The knights receive twice as much damage from countercharging marauders rather than standing still.

    lol hilarious
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    saweendra said:

    just tried another fun one: marauders GW and empire knights mutually charging, then marauders charging and knights standing still. The knights receive twice as much damage from countercharging marauders rather than standing still.

    this is the part i don't get why do counter charging recive more damage.
    does the models go deeper in to the block infantry and thus getting surrounded ?
    far as i can tell charge compresses the unit and where if infantry brace only something like 1/4th the unit gets to attack, almost half the cavalry unit gets to attack.
    I countercharge the mass of cavalry pushes the ranks together and both units get to attack with about half their models. particularly if you do something dumb like charging armored unit into a high CB AP unit this will work against you...
  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Registered Users Posts: 3,765

    @pippington I agree that countercharging should be the best move for gw infantry, but it's a move of desperation and "short handweapon should not trade up in a head on clash with shock lances" because that's basically what we're trying to simulate but we have to do it without any first strike mechanics or true weapon length mechanics, or too much knockbacks (because I don't think ca would dare).

    A great axe isn't short, and it seems like a pretty good weapon for trying to kill a horse. My intuition for what should happen when 120 crazy guys with 2h axes charge at 45 charging knights with lances is that 45 of them get skewered, but the remaining 75 are going to do some serious damage. It's a 'desperation move' in that they're not defending themselves from a big burst of damage, but not in that they're just doomed to go out without achieving anything.

    In terms of genuine short hand weapon vs lance situations, I think it's still pretty possible to run over Swordsmen or Clanrats with KotBS all day. The only hand weapon units that compare to the GW units are very fantasy-fied ones like SOBUs.

    I also think it's dangerous to overgeneralise here, because there is just as much weird and wacky variation between cav units in Warhammer as in the other unit categories. Some shock cav have lances; others have great weapons or short cavalry spears or clubs. Before the end of the year we're likely to have others with crab claws and whips. Even now we've got cav units whose charge attack is animated as using their mount's forehead. So I think the argument that shock cav should get some head start in getting their damage in is a bit weak.

    I do think lances are poorly defined as a weapon type in TW:WH though... with most infantry weapon types, the weapon gives you a fair idea of the unit's function. With lances, the only constant is a big charge bonus (which other cav also have to varying degrees), and otherwise they run the gamut from anti-large to anti-infantry and AP to non-AP. I wouldn't be against CA experimenting to make lances specifically a more recognisable weapon type. (This is true for monstrous infantry weapon types too... what does a monstrous infantry great weapon do? well if you're a kroxigor, BvI, but if you're a minotaur, BvL...)

    I also think you're right about shock playing a big part in this, and I think that's one reason that the original pacing changes are still playing a really significant role. Shock cav should not be trying to trade HP in a cost-efficient battle of attrition; that's not their home turf. They should be delivering shocks that break morale (a stat where infantry have no advantage) and then running disorganised formations down in the chaos that ensues. In WH1 that was very possible, but in WH2 the only infantry you can really break immediately off a charge are things like skavenslaves and peasant mobs. I don't know how you do anything with that without resurrecting people's complaints about the pace of games however.

    EDIT: Note that weapon length does exist in game. I don't know how it interacts with the timing of attacks, or where on a cavalry model with a mount part and rider part it's measured from. But it definitely exists and it definitely has a strong impact on the number of attacks you can get from the rear ranks of a unit. Forsaken went from great to meh on account of their weirdly high weapon length getting reduced to a more reasonable number.
    one way is too increase the CB duration where it is applied for 1300+ shock cav only.
    maybe even non anti-large melee cav as well..? but thats up for debate.

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    On the debate about shooting cav I think cav face more challenges from ranged fire even if they can also be good at shutting it down. Being large is rough Vs ranged.

    you think chaos knights are more in danger from ranged in general than chosen GW?
    Most infantry units are extremely vulnerable to ranged. so much in fact that you dont see them very often. cavalry can reach ranged in les than half the time, even stuff like higher hitpoint pr entity vs cannons doesnt undo that - unless you are comparing firing on an elite unit with firing on chaff. but again thats not really much of an issue since cavalry beats chaff unless we are talking AL chaff which is beaten by anything nonlarge...
    To answer your question, yes definitely. Ranged fire hits hard on lower hp units and artillery and magic kill models of cav much better than inf. Being fast is a big help but chaos knights are not the “dodging bullets” type of fast cav, and most cav (and most players) aren’t.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,779
    I tested the difference between charging the infantry into Cavalry and just running through them without an attack order.

    Both Charging after 10 seconds:
    • Reiksguard: 2695
    • CWGW: 1483
    Reiksguard charging, CW running through:
    • Reiksguard: 3178
    • Chaos Marauder Great Weapon: 379
    Trying to run through charging cavalry gets infantry absolutely PUNTED. Took them about 5 seconds just to get up and hit back. So lesson is don't try to run through charging cavalry unless you want to go flying.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    I dont think LB GW should be trading better vs Cav when charging rather than when bracing, fix the margin of error there and apply it to other GW infantry, likewise halberds. Bracing while having charge defense vs large should produce better outcome.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    Jman5 said:

    I tested the difference between charging the infantry into Cavalry and just running through them without an attack order.

    Both Charging after 10 seconds:

    • Reiksguard: 2695
    • CWGW: 1483
    Reiksguard charging, CW running through:
    • Reiksguard: 3178
    • Chaos Marauder Great Weapon: 379
    Trying to run through charging cavalry gets infantry absolutely PUNTED. Took them about 5 seconds just to get up and hit back. So lesson is don't try to run through charging cavalry unless you want to go flying.
    yup. i'd say at a minimum cavalry are much more tricky to use well and get their potential value than in the past, which is a combination of counter charge potentials but also units getting stuck more (especially when charges aren't well planned or supported) or dropped orders.

    Aside from the dropped orders, i really enjoy the more interesting and skill-based play required by the cav. But the units prices for the elite cav is no longer commensurate with the level of risk and challenges they face. So some kind of help is important.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462

    @pippington I agree that countercharging should be the best move for gw infantry, but it's a move of desperation and "short handweapon should not trade up in a head on clash with shock lances" because that's basically what we're trying to simulate but we have to do it without any first strike mechanics or true weapon length mechanics, or too much knockbacks (because I don't think ca would dare).

    A great axe isn't short, and it seems like a pretty good weapon for trying to kill a horse. My intuition for what should happen when 120 crazy guys with 2h axes charge at 45 charging knights with lances is that 45 of them get skewered, but the remaining 75 are going to do some serious damage. It's a 'desperation move' in that they're not defending themselves from a big burst of damage, but not in that they're just doomed to go out without achieving anything.

    In terms of genuine short hand weapon vs lance situations, I think it's still pretty possible to run over Swordsmen or Clanrats with KotBS all day. The only hand weapon units that compare to the GW units are very fantasy-fied ones like SOBUs.

    I also think it's dangerous to overgeneralise here, because there is just as much weird and wacky variation between cav units in Warhammer as in the other unit categories. Some shock cav have lances; others have great weapons or short cavalry spears or clubs. Before the end of the year we're likely to have others with crab claws and whips. Even now we've got cav units whose charge attack is animated as using their mount's forehead. So I think the argument that shock cav should get some head start in getting their damage in is a bit weak.

    I do think lances are poorly defined as a weapon type in TW:WH though... with most infantry weapon types, the weapon gives you a fair idea of the unit's function. With lances, the only constant is a big charge bonus (which other cav also have to varying degrees), and otherwise they run the gamut from anti-large to anti-infantry and AP to non-AP. I wouldn't be against CA experimenting to make lances specifically a more recognisable weapon type. (This is true for monstrous infantry weapon types too... what does a monstrous infantry great weapon do? well if you're a kroxigor, BvI, but if you're a minotaur, BvL...)

    I also think you're right about shock playing a big part in this, and I think that's one reason that the original pacing changes are still playing a really significant role. Shock cav should not be trying to trade HP in a cost-efficient battle of attrition; that's not their home turf. They should be delivering shocks that break morale (a stat where infantry have no advantage) and then running disorganised formations down in the chaos that ensues. In WH1 that was very possible, but in WH2 the only infantry you can really break immediately off a charge are things like skavenslaves and peasant mobs. I don't know how you do anything with that without resurrecting people's complaints about the pace of games however.

    EDIT: Note that weapon length does exist in game. I don't know how it interacts with the timing of attacks, or where on a cavalry model with a mount part and rider part it's measured from. But it definitely exists and it definitely has a strong impact on the number of attacks you can get from the rear ranks of a unit. Forsaken went from great to meh on account of their weirdly high weapon length getting reduced to a more reasonable number.
    one way is too increase the CB duration where it is applied for 1300+ shock cav only.
    maybe even non anti-large melee cav as well..? but thats up for debate.

    I dont think LB GW should be trading better vs Cav when charging rather than when bracing, fix the margin of error there and apply it to other GW infantry, likewise halberds. Bracing while having charge defense vs large should produce better outcome.

    The problem is bracing severely hurts your damage output. if you have charge defense it sort of evens out with both sides dealing less dfamage, but charging a braced AL charge defense unit should be punishing.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    eumaies said:

    Jman5 said:

    I tested the difference between charging the infantry into Cavalry and just running through them without an attack order.

    Both Charging after 10 seconds:

    • Reiksguard: 2695
    • CWGW: 1483
    Reiksguard charging, CW running through:
    • Reiksguard: 3178
    • Chaos Marauder Great Weapon: 379
    Trying to run through charging cavalry gets infantry absolutely PUNTED. Took them about 5 seconds just to get up and hit back. So lesson is don't try to run through charging cavalry unless you want to go flying.
    yup. i'd say at a minimum cavalry are much more tricky to use well and get their potential value than in the past, which is a combination of counter charge potentials but also units getting stuck more (especially when charges aren't well planned or supported) or dropped orders.

    Aside from the dropped orders, i really enjoy the more interesting and skill-based play required by the cav. But the units prices for the elite cav is no longer commensurate with the level of risk and challenges they face. So some kind of help is important.
    its still important to keep in mind that the interaction in question is fairly rare. imo its more of a matter of principle less about actual gameplay. countercharges vs GW infantry do happen but they are very rare, and skilled players will now be more careful making them even rarer.
    imo the question is simply should a unit pay for mobility, if yes then there's nothing off about the interaction except that GW could have lower CB
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,405
    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    Jman5 said:

    I tested the difference between charging the infantry into Cavalry and just running through them without an attack order.

    Both Charging after 10 seconds:

    • Reiksguard: 2695
    • CWGW: 1483
    Reiksguard charging, CW running through:
    • Reiksguard: 3178
    • Chaos Marauder Great Weapon: 379
    Trying to run through charging cavalry gets infantry absolutely PUNTED. Took them about 5 seconds just to get up and hit back. So lesson is don't try to run through charging cavalry unless you want to go flying.
    yup. i'd say at a minimum cavalry are much more tricky to use well and get their potential value than in the past, which is a combination of counter charge potentials but also units getting stuck more (especially when charges aren't well planned or supported) or dropped orders.

    Aside from the dropped orders, i really enjoy the more interesting and skill-based play required by the cav. But the units prices for the elite cav is no longer commensurate with the level of risk and challenges they face. So some kind of help is important.
    its still important to keep in mind that the interaction in question is fairly rare. imo its more of a matter of principle less about actual gameplay. countercharges vs GW infantry do happen but they are very rare, and skilled players will now be more careful making them even rarer.
    imo the question is simply should a unit pay for mobility, if yes then there's nothing off about the interaction except that GW could have lower CB
    sure there's this whole philosophical debate about what's correct gameplay that isn't that important to me. What is important is good balance, and it's harder (for multiple reasons) to justify pricier cav units than it was. the game was balanced for 90% of its life around a different set of rules.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 15,995
    eumaies said:

    Jman5 said:

    I tested the difference between charging the infantry into Cavalry and just running through them without an attack order.

    Both Charging after 10 seconds:

    • Reiksguard: 2695
    • CWGW: 1483
    Reiksguard charging, CW running through:
    • Reiksguard: 3178
    • Chaos Marauder Great Weapon: 379
    Trying to run through charging cavalry gets infantry absolutely PUNTED. Took them about 5 seconds just to get up and hit back. So lesson is don't try to run through charging cavalry unless you want to go flying.
    yup. i'd say at a minimum cavalry are much more tricky to use well and get their potential value than in the past, which is a combination of counter charge potentials but also units getting stuck more (especially when charges aren't well planned or supported) or dropped orders.

    Aside from the dropped orders, i really enjoy the more interesting and skill-based play required by the cav. But the units prices for the elite cav is no longer commensurate with the level of risk and challenges they face. So some kind of help is important.
    Yeah that's why i think its important to start fine tune knock down grace periods.

    A peasent mob or zombie shouldn't have the same knock down grace period as a iron breaker or a black orc...

    If CA can actually put the work and start balancing mass values and knock down grace periods by race , armour value, formation than the risk posed by cheaper great weapon units is lessened not just for cavalry but also for monsters infantry and monsters.

    But keep the danger posed by elite infantry.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited July 2021
    eumaies said:

    RawSugar said:

    eumaies said:

    Jman5 said:

    I tested the difference between charging the infantry into Cavalry and just running through them without an attack order.

    Both Charging after 10 seconds:

    • Reiksguard: 2695
    • CWGW: 1483
    Reiksguard charging, CW running through:
    • Reiksguard: 3178
    • Chaos Marauder Great Weapon: 379
    Trying to run through charging cavalry gets infantry absolutely PUNTED. Took them about 5 seconds just to get up and hit back. So lesson is don't try to run through charging cavalry unless you want to go flying.
    yup. i'd say at a minimum cavalry are much more tricky to use well and get their potential value than in the past, which is a combination of counter charge potentials but also units getting stuck more (especially when charges aren't well planned or supported) or dropped orders.

    Aside from the dropped orders, i really enjoy the more interesting and skill-based play required by the cav. But the units prices for the elite cav is no longer commensurate with the level of risk and challenges they face. So some kind of help is important.
    its still important to keep in mind that the interaction in question is fairly rare. imo its more of a matter of principle less about actual gameplay. countercharges vs GW infantry do happen but they are very rare, and skilled players will now be more careful making them even rarer.
    imo the question is simply should a unit pay for mobility, if yes then there's nothing off about the interaction except that GW could have lower CB
    sure there's this whole philosophical debate about what's correct gameplay that isn't that important to me. What is important is good balance, and it's harder (for multiple reasons) to justify pricier cav units than it was. the game was balanced for 90% of its life around a different set of rules.
    yeah my point is; that hasnt dramatically changed. cavalry countercharging GW infantry is such a rare occurence it barely matters - moreover its a matter of balance between cavalry and GW infantry, not cavalry in general, and between the two cavalry saw more play. To a lesser extent it also affects some other interactions but as far as i can tell only to improve balance

    when we're talking more common interactions like swordsmen or spearmen countercharging we're talking maybe an extra 100 damage, while cavalry still deals thousands, its gone from onesided to slightly less onesided, and if every charge you make is countercharged i feel like something is wrong.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    What one needs to remember is that before this stag change, the current meta was already here with heavy cav already harder/more frustrating to play.

    The stag change just added insult to injury, and the more you look into this the more messed up it looks. The only thing consistent here seems to be that CA creates more bugs than they fix with every update...
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,837
    RawSugar said:

    @pippington I agree that countercharging should be the best move for gw infantry, but it's a move of desperation and "short handweapon should not trade up in a head on clash with shock lances" because that's basically what we're trying to simulate but we have to do it without any first strike mechanics or true weapon length mechanics, or too much knockbacks (because I don't think ca would dare).

    A great axe isn't short, and it seems like a pretty good weapon for trying to kill a horse. My intuition for what should happen when 120 crazy guys with 2h axes charge at 45 charging knights with lances is that 45 of them get skewered, but the remaining 75 are going to do some serious damage. It's a 'desperation move' in that they're not defending themselves from a big burst of damage, but not in that they're just doomed to go out without achieving anything.

    In terms of genuine short hand weapon vs lance situations, I think it's still pretty possible to run over Swordsmen or Clanrats with KotBS all day. The only hand weapon units that compare to the GW units are very fantasy-fied ones like SOBUs.

    I also think it's dangerous to overgeneralise here, because there is just as much weird and wacky variation between cav units in Warhammer as in the other unit categories. Some shock cav have lances; others have great weapons or short cavalry spears or clubs. Before the end of the year we're likely to have others with crab claws and whips. Even now we've got cav units whose charge attack is animated as using their mount's forehead. So I think the argument that shock cav should get some head start in getting their damage in is a bit weak.

    I do think lances are poorly defined as a weapon type in TW:WH though... with most infantry weapon types, the weapon gives you a fair idea of the unit's function. With lances, the only constant is a big charge bonus (which other cav also have to varying degrees), and otherwise they run the gamut from anti-large to anti-infantry and AP to non-AP. I wouldn't be against CA experimenting to make lances specifically a more recognisable weapon type. (This is true for monstrous infantry weapon types too... what does a monstrous infantry great weapon do? well if you're a kroxigor, BvI, but if you're a minotaur, BvL...)

    I also think you're right about shock playing a big part in this, and I think that's one reason that the original pacing changes are still playing a really significant role. Shock cav should not be trying to trade HP in a cost-efficient battle of attrition; that's not their home turf. They should be delivering shocks that break morale (a stat where infantry have no advantage) and then running disorganised formations down in the chaos that ensues. In WH1 that was very possible, but in WH2 the only infantry you can really break immediately off a charge are things like skavenslaves and peasant mobs. I don't know how you do anything with that without resurrecting people's complaints about the pace of games however.

    EDIT: Note that weapon length does exist in game. I don't know how it interacts with the timing of attacks, or where on a cavalry model with a mount part and rider part it's measured from. But it definitely exists and it definitely has a strong impact on the number of attacks you can get from the rear ranks of a unit. Forsaken went from great to meh on account of their weirdly high weapon length getting reduced to a more reasonable number.
    one way is too increase the CB duration where it is applied for 1300+ shock cav only.
    maybe even non anti-large melee cav as well..? but thats up for debate.

    I dont think LB GW should be trading better vs Cav when charging rather than when bracing, fix the margin of error there and apply it to other GW infantry, likewise halberds. Bracing while having charge defense vs large should produce better outcome.

    The problem is bracing severely hurts your damage output. if you have charge defense it sort of evens out with both sides dealing less dfamage, but charging a braced AL charge defense unit should be punishing.
    Im not disagreeing that charing should do more dmg from GW infantry BUT bracing should be the better outcome in the lord run since you nulify the CB of cav.

    So you should take and do less dmg, therefore after CB period is over you should dominate with GW infantry with charge defense, now its just better to charge.
  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 1,240

    I dont think LB GW should be trading better vs Cav when charging rather than when bracing, fix the margin of error there and apply it to other GW infantry, likewise halberds. Bracing while having charge defense vs large should produce better outcome.

    This would require a complete rework of how bracing mechanics work in the game though, which is more in depth than just buffing cav stats so it can perform with the current interaction in place.
    . Currently, bracing doesn't work properly, especially for more elite units, even if the unit has anti-large, largely due to the need for the unit to be still in order to brace. Chaff can make do with bracing (or just taking the charge unbraced) because you can bring so many of them as to deny the cavalry the potential of circling around, and have plenty of infantry to go around, while still having the funds to bring plenty of firepower to force the opponent in. You can't do that with more elite units; the mechanics of the game just don't allow for it.
    . Cavalry has no reason to take a head to head charge infantry, and can circle the infantry faster than the infantry unit can turn - making bracing effectively impossible, as units cannot brace while moving. Infantry being able to countercharge cavalry effectively resolves that issue.

    . The current mechanics work out fine in the interim. They aren't perfectly realistic, but even for the specific topic of unrealism in cavalry vs infantry interactions, this is far from the most egregious case... nor is it even a definitively unrealistic one, given the lack of real world examples.
    . Cavalry sends infantry flying 10+ meters, doesn't suffer any penalties for charging across a marsh/riverbed, suffers only minor penalties in a forest (and can still charge effectively), can't trample or move over prone infantry (something literally everything in the game should arguably be able to do, but can't,because that would be bad for gameplay with other mechanics taken into account), etc...
    . Arguably, infantry trading heavy damage with cavalry on a contested charge, as it does, isn't a problem at all; there's good reason for both sides to take heavy damage in such a situation, especially given that this is Warhammer, and most infantry are not normal humans. Orcs, gors, saurus, and chaos warriors, for example, are much large/stronger, and a cavalry charge almost certainly would not fare the same against them as against normal humans; elves have superhuman reflexes, so again, cavalry would likely not interact with them the same way.

    . Stag Knights/Wild Riders taking heavy damage when being countercharged by non-AP shock infantry like savage orcs/Gors, when their steeds are entirely unarmoured, doesn't bother me.
    . Such animal moving at high speed when it coming into contact with a weapon being swung at it with reasonable force, is almost certainly going to injure it. There's no reason for wild riders to come out of an engagement with shock infantry nearly unscathed when countercharged. They aren't really suited as a counter to such units. Their high melee attack/charge bonus is wasted against the low melee defense, and they get punished with heavy damage for their own poor defensive stats.
    . Offensive oriented infantry, like Gors/Savage Orcs is generally good at trading up for that exact reason - even if it loses the fight, it's able to dish out damage, where more defensively oriented infantry will often fail to deal any significant damage to more elite units. Conversely, it's relatively bad at trading down because it doesn't have the defensive stats and suffers significant damage even while fighting chaff. This is contrary to what a lot of people seem to expect from these units, but it arguably makes some sense.

    . As far as marauder great weapons: they've actually always done relatively well vs cavalry. They also happen to be bad vs the majority of infantry in the game, and lost/traded poorly against even to some infantry you might expect them to beat, like Dwarf Warriors.
    . Maybe you find it weird that they're effectively an anti-cav unit in the game, despite not being anti-large or carrying polearms, but that's just how things work out sometimes. Their loose formation has, ironically, always been an advantage against a cav charge in practice, rather than a disadvantage, as it made it easier for cavalry entities to penetrate into the unit and get surrounded.


    . IMO, it's a bit odd that cavalry trading poorly on the charge with an entire class of infantry that's specialized for fighting head to head, that's been largely out of the meta for the entirety of TWWHs existence, is being regarded as such a massive problem, especially when cavalry is still seeing more competitive use than many of those infantry units, if not as much as it probably should, due to the general performance of cavalry being sub-par, but that's a case for buffing cav in general, not necessarily changing this specific interaction, which is a relatively minor point in the struggles cavalry is having as a whole right now.

    . The cavalry vs infantry interaction working like this actually gives CA more room to make cavalry better in general, especially in singleplayer, where the old interaction was significantly more difficult to abuse just due to the value of the armies involved, and the tendency of players to play on ultra unit scale, which made things relatively worse for cavalry.


    . As always in these threads: don't take this as me saying cav performance is up to par right now. It obviously needs buffs. I just think the mechanics behind the current interaction are probably fine, at least until/unless a much more thorough rework to bracing mechanics is implemented.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,462
    edited July 2021

    RawSugar said:

    @pippington I agree that countercharging should be the best move for gw infantry, but it's a move of desperation and "short handweapon should not trade up in a head on clash with shock lances" because that's basically what we're trying to simulate but we have to do it without any first strike mechanics or true weapon length mechanics, or too much knockbacks (because I don't think ca would dare).

    A great axe isn't short, and it seems like a pretty good weapon for trying to kill a horse. My intuition for what should happen when 120 crazy guys with 2h axes charge at 45 charging knights with lances is that 45 of them get skewered, but the remaining 75 are going to do some serious damage. It's a 'desperation move' in that they're not defending themselves from a big burst of damage, but not in that they're just doomed to go out without achieving anything.

    In terms of genuine short hand weapon vs lance situations, I think it's still pretty possible to run over Swordsmen or Clanrats with KotBS all day. The only hand weapon units that compare to the GW units are very fantasy-fied ones like SOBUs.

    I also think it's dangerous to overgeneralise here, because there is just as much weird and wacky variation between cav units in Warhammer as in the other unit categories. Some shock cav have lances; others have great weapons or short cavalry spears or clubs. Before the end of the year we're likely to have others with crab claws and whips. Even now we've got cav units whose charge attack is animated as using their mount's forehead. So I think the argument that shock cav should get some head start in getting their damage in is a bit weak.

    I do think lances are poorly defined as a weapon type in TW:WH though... with most infantry weapon types, the weapon gives you a fair idea of the unit's function. With lances, the only constant is a big charge bonus (which other cav also have to varying degrees), and otherwise they run the gamut from anti-large to anti-infantry and AP to non-AP. I wouldn't be against CA experimenting to make lances specifically a more recognisable weapon type. (This is true for monstrous infantry weapon types too... what does a monstrous infantry great weapon do? well if you're a kroxigor, BvI, but if you're a minotaur, BvL...)

    I also think you're right about shock playing a big part in this, and I think that's one reason that the original pacing changes are still playing a really significant role. Shock cav should not be trying to trade HP in a cost-efficient battle of attrition; that's not their home turf. They should be delivering shocks that break morale (a stat where infantry have no advantage) and then running disorganised formations down in the chaos that ensues. In WH1 that was very possible, but in WH2 the only infantry you can really break immediately off a charge are things like skavenslaves and peasant mobs. I don't know how you do anything with that without resurrecting people's complaints about the pace of games however.

    EDIT: Note that weapon length does exist in game. I don't know how it interacts with the timing of attacks, or where on a cavalry model with a mount part and rider part it's measured from. But it definitely exists and it definitely has a strong impact on the number of attacks you can get from the rear ranks of a unit. Forsaken went from great to meh on account of their weirdly high weapon length getting reduced to a more reasonable number.
    one way is too increase the CB duration where it is applied for 1300+ shock cav only.
    maybe even non anti-large melee cav as well..? but thats up for debate.

    I dont think LB GW should be trading better vs Cav when charging rather than when bracing, fix the margin of error there and apply it to other GW infantry, likewise halberds. Bracing while having charge defense vs large should produce better outcome.

    The problem is bracing severely hurts your damage output. if you have charge defense it sort of evens out with both sides dealing less dfamage, but charging a braced AL charge defense unit should be punishing.
    Im not disagreeing that charing should do more dmg from GW infantry BUT bracing should be the better outcome in the lord run since you nulify the CB of cav.

    So you should take and do less dmg, therefore after CB period is over you should dominate with GW infantry with charge defense, now its just better to charge.
    atm reiksguard will actually beat a unit of tomb guard polearm if the polearms try to brace, because bracing isnt just useless its detrimental reducing your number of attack by half while the cavalry still gets to attack with most units. even if you get AL opponent getting twice as many attacks still puts you at a disadvantage im not even sure what to do about that altho ive seen some games have reflect damage in interactions like that. Alternatively bracing should reduce number of attacks cavalr gets ss well.
    The only way to make bracing the most desired outcome for GW infantry would be to give them charge defense when bracing and give cavalry charge defense vs infantry while charging. As asamu pointed out you'd also need to improve bracing though so cavalry cant just run around the unit, so bracing must work regardless of which way the unit is facing - but probably shouldnt work when models are engaged in melee
    Either way; cavalry should keep paying that premium on movement. That means countercharging equal cost infantry should be a really bad idea.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,517
    Charge def vs large should just be a flat +8 def vs large or whatever CA deem fit, why all the useless complexity when bracing is weak or literally not working at all
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 6,975
    @Asamu I don't know your background or motivations behind these opinions, but mine come from competitive multiplayer considerations.

    It's true that bracing is clunky mechanics, but it's basically area denial rather than for winning trades. You can't ignore time, and you can't ignore that the main function of spears in this game is area denial (both in terms of you can't reach this spot and if you reach this spot and stay here you'll die). That's what you pay for and that's what you get. Spears have always been cost efficient as such.

    Thus saying that you can just use mobility to ride around bracing is a misconception and misleading. You can flank faster than you brace at least sometimes, BUT flanking is not free, you will be shot by ranged, cannons and magic while doing so, already there the spear has generated value by just existing. Furthermore this never happens in a vacuum, there may not be a flank because defensive units form a circle, or the flank is denied by the opponent responding with other units. At the end of the day, flanking comes at a cost and is situational.

    Even more expensive halberds were more common in the meta before the stag debacle. We already had the cw halberd meta builds for example and units like bg, pg, tg, tghb, chosen, were all very much present in the meta, as were the gw infantry. Cw gw, wl, rcs, mar gw, dwf gw, lbgw, ib, hammers, bo, gggw, etc were all very present in metabuilds. None of these units were in need of buffs just as little as any hvy cav was in need of nerfs.

    Infantry mass/cohesion had been buffed long ago here. Cav was already struggling with especially chaff mass and summon mass, effectively netting them down. Early "free" charges with cav vs idle units usually had you trade down because a few models getting stuck. This is the status quo. Referring to wh1 state of cav when discussing fixing the interaction between gw infantry and shock cav is directly detrimental for the discussion and a lie in lack of a better word for it.

    Fixing this and other affected interactions that were broken by whatever change was made to force stag hit reg is not the same thing as "reintroducing a bug". What it is is RESTORING EXPECTED OUTCOME of interactions that have been in a balanced state for years. The "mechanics" you are referring to is not a singular thing. It's the sum of animations, unit packing, weapon length, mass, splash force, charge speed etc etc and its the SUM of these that should produce the expected outcome, and this expected outcome is what game design dictates that the outcome should be when elite shock cav and naked 2h axes charge each other. The obsession with the unit card is just another distraction and again detrimental. The stat card describes what happens when a melee attack is performed, but what matters here is how many attacks should be performed when shock lances and axes clash, and that is a function of the sum of all the factors contributing to the interaction mechanics listed above, and these are solved on a model for model basis.

    The bottom line is that for a random reason a random unit class started to overperform by approximately 100% and it goes without saying that it needs to be repaired. The why and how is of less importance really. You don't see me defending broken boar chariots even though the changes to boar chariots are described as a bug fix to the footprint shape of chariots. If a unit or a unit interaction is broken you fix it. If you're arguing to not fix it then you are effectively arguing for a less balanced game.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
Sign In or Register to comment.