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

State of Bretonnia

AIMA_DracklorAIMA_Dracklor Registered Users Posts: 4,632
What are your toughts on Bretonnia ?

I feel they are pretty UP at the moment, there is the paladin and fey combo that is pretty powerfull, but it seems like the only good thing and quite cheesy.

Cavalry are in a very rough spot and its the core of Bret playstyle. Their cav while they are supposed to be the best knights in the old world are not really that good compared to other cav factions. Their infantry is weak and squishy, their special units such as peg knights are too fragile to be a good pick and be really usefull( I still do bring them just for the thematic, but one fate of bjuna basically erradicates the unit).

Thats just my own personal opinion, what is yours ?

If you think they are UP what changes do you think they need ?


«13

Comments

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,321
    their higher tier inf are too weak
  • Baron_RobbaneBaron_Robbane Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 479

    What are your toughts on Bretonnia ?

    I feel they are pretty UP at the moment, there is the paladin and fey combo that is pretty powerfull, but it seems like the only good thing and quite cheesy.

    Cavalry are in a very rough spot and its the core of Bret playstyle. Their cav while they are supposed to be the best knights in the old world are not really that good compared to other cav factions. Their infantry is weak and squishy, their special units such as peg knights are too fragile to be a good pick and be really usefull( I still do bring them just for the thematic, but one fate of bjuna basically erradicates the unit).

    Thats just my own personal opinion, what is yours ?

    If you think they are UP what changes do you think they need ?

    Spicy idea is to make foot squiers be able to switch weapons like you can in Troy.
    They have a sword and shield on their back. Makes them a unique and flavourful unit and gives brettonia a better defensive frontline in some cases. But other than that hope for cav fix and theyre top tier again.
    Team Wood Elves
  • AIMA_DracklorAIMA_Dracklor Registered Users Posts: 4,632

    What are your toughts on Bretonnia ?

    I feel they are pretty UP at the moment, there is the paladin and fey combo that is pretty powerfull, but it seems like the only good thing and quite cheesy.

    Cavalry are in a very rough spot and its the core of Bret playstyle. Their cav while they are supposed to be the best knights in the old world are not really that good compared to other cav factions. Their infantry is weak and squishy, their special units such as peg knights are too fragile to be a good pick and be really usefull( I still do bring them just for the thematic, but one fate of bjuna basically erradicates the unit).

    Thats just my own personal opinion, what is yours ?

    If you think they are UP what changes do you think they need ?

    Spicy idea is to make foot squiers be able to switch weapons like you can in Troy.
    They have a sword and shield on their back. Makes them a unique and flavourful unit and gives brettonia a better defensive frontline in some cases. But other than that hope for cav fix and theyre top tier again.
    More holding power could indeed be very usefull, not make them dwarfs, but for an hammer and anvil type race, the anvil needs to be able to last a bit before collapsing. Which at the moment is not the case, bret frontlines collapse in seconds to some armies


  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,656
    edited August 31
    Right now they are effected by general state if cav..

    Than obviously by fay double pladin. Which obviously need a rebalance .

    Once that's fixed you will see acruatte state of bretonnia
    eumaies said:

    their higher tier inf are too weak

    For the cost i mean there servicble, nothing really up or op. Just there.

    Its just that bret roster is super limited because well its flc .they need a dlc rather than trying ro over buff them.

    They aka bret peasent infantry should be slightly worse than state troops specilally because they get crappie weapons in lore
    Post edited by saweendra on
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 737
    Personally I would rather not buff higher tier infantry, they are not as cost effective as similar units in other factions but they are still seen very often. If mass cavalry builds were viable, oponents would need more anti-cav just in case, thus becoming more vulnerable to pilgrims or footsquires. The fact that you don't need to build against mass cav lowers their surprise value.

    even after cav charges are settled, Bretonnia will need new support abilities to make mass cav viable sometimes, typically short but map-wide buffs. And a lance formation that could partially play the tactical role of chariots.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,487
    edited August 31
    Paladins too good, fey also

    But bret is in meh spot because it took people to finally realise that bret cav cannot punish chaff infantry head on, so now people dont take anti cav vs bret anymore they just take generalised infantry, its kinda why you see armies of 10 GW those days vs brets.

    In the past people needed to bring anti large to combat bret cav and thus bret low tier infantry could do decent vs those units and put pressure on opponents ranged/warmachines etc, now opponent can skip spears/halberds and max out on all round infantry that beats bret front line and does well vs cav. I mean you can clearly see issues when WE's switched from pikcing eternal guard to protect their archers vs Cav to dryads...eternal guard would trade bad vs men at arms but good into cav, now dryads can trade well into both.

    The reason its quite clear lately is simply because the cav/ifnantry interaction got a lot of exposure and people have finally adapted their armies.


    Mind you i dont think bret is in that bad spot because fey is still hard caring them, but if she was not there it be sad state almost.

    PS: cav does not need buffs, its the infantry side of the engagement that is overperfroming, cav dmg on charge is fine and acceptable but issue is that they are taking 3x dmg back compared to before, thus unable to punish infantry head on.
  • AfghanMambaAfghanMamba Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 43
    edited August 31
    Bret overall is fine I think as long as you stick to the Fay, double paladin, peasant bowmen builds that have cav relegated to a mostly support role. Fay’s and the undercosted paladins/bows are carrying the faction right now.

    I’d rather they didn’t buff the higher tier infantry for the sake of Bret’s identity. Think it’d be better if they fixed the cav/infantry interactions and also gave a slight nerf to Fay and Paladins cause they’d be too strong if cav was functioning properly and all else was the same.
  • ShevaTsarShevaTsar Registered Users Posts: 586

    Paladins too good, fey also

    But bret is in meh spot because it took people to finally realise that bret cav cannot punish chaff infantry head on, so now people dont take anti cav vs bret anymore they just take generalised infantry, its kinda why you see armies of 10 GW those days vs brets.

    In the past people needed to bring anti large to combat bret cav and thus bret low tier infantry could do decent vs those units and put pressure on opponents ranged/warmachines etc, now opponent can skip spears/halberds and max out on all round infantry that beats bret front line and does well vs cav. I mean you can clearly see issues when WE's switched from pikcing eternal guard to protect their archers vs Cav to dryads...eternal guard would trade bad vs men at arms but good into cav, now dryads can trade well into both.

    The reason its quite clear lately is simply because the cav/ifnantry interaction got a lot of exposure and people have finally adapted their armies.


    Mind you i dont think bret is in that bad spot because fey is still hard caring them, but if she was not there it be sad state almost.

    PS: cav does not need buffs, its the infantry side of the engagement that is overperfroming, cav dmg on charge is fine and acceptable but issue is that they are taking 3x dmg back compared to before, thus unable to punish infantry head on.

    I think it's great to pick one unit and see that unit be good against everything the opponent can bring, brings great build variety and diverse units to see play.
    Welcome to Cathay - the very ancient, super-duper, hyper, fantastic, incredible, majestic, wonderful, sexy, mighty empire, the greatest of all livings.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    BREt archers are really good if you can protect them, their low tier infantry is crazy efficient. They arent forced to use more than a few K cavalry and when they do QK are crazy efficient.
    As a faction they are quite strong, and cavalry losing countercharge defense hasnt affected them more than others, they werent likely to go big on cavalry before because you'd always expect some cavalry from them.
    Their issue is mostly that they rely on a few strong units, which feels a little stale. they also lack really good frontline disruption. current patch hasnt helped with that but even before their options for reaching the enemy gunline were a little lacking
  • AIMA_DracklorAIMA_Dracklor Registered Users Posts: 4,632
    Prominent builds seem to be using a lot of fey/paladin and peasants, but thats not supposed to be what Bretonnia is about.

    Bretonnia should have a strong air force component with powerfull cav being the main domiant point in the faction, not mass peasants...


  • Kebab_manKebab_man Registered Users Posts: 565
    I think the cav is really the weak point of the army, as is there cav is supposed to be God teir, if we do a comparison to dwarfs here for the sake of convenience, dwarfs have no cav, to make up for that they have really beefy infantry, brettonia had infantry that are right next to the might as well not exit category, but they don't really have cav that is super beefy, thats not to say brettonia cav should be tankier, but they definitely need to either buff the infantry some, or allow the cav faction to really make use of there cav, Pegasus knights might be the best way to have this, they should be really good in quite a few matchups, but as is they are just not worth it because the cost is to great, if a cost nerf is the best way to balance them I can't say, I don't know the roster well enough, but for a faction that uses cav, the abylity to bypass most the things that stop cav should be a very powerful tool, but it's just not due to them big caught lacking
  • AudacimousAudacimous Registered Users Posts: 179
    Fay is just too good that it's hard to justify any other lord in any Bret MU. Fay can just sit in a blob and generate 3k+ value easily while costing 1700 gold; meanwhile Louen can be cycle charging all game with ridiculous APM and generate less than 2k value (especially if opponent brings a wide meta build) while costing 2800. That said Bret is pretty bad since cav suck so much and everyone just bring 20 stack spear/GW infantry spam.
  • Totentanz777Totentanz777 Registered Users Posts: 631
    Brettonia isn't bad at all and is in fact a strong faction overall. Fey is broken of course but paladins are also one of the best heroes in the game. Can't really use their cav in a central, damage dealing role unfortunately due to how the game works now. But their archers are very powerful due to their cheap cost and they have great peasant chaff units. Lore of life and hippogryphs are a great combo as well.
  • BjornNorlinderBjornNorlinder Registered Users Posts: 809
    Dlc will come when 9th ed Is out.... only like 5 years. Nothing to worry
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,343
    Infantry are not an issue for brets, because you have Fay -> best Mortis engine in the game right now.
    With Fay bret is strong factions probably in A tier right now.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,487
    edited September 1
    tank3487 said:

    Infantry are not an issue for brets, because you have Fay -> best Mortis engine in the game right now.
    With Fay bret is strong factions probably in A tier right now.

    they are because they counter bret cav har dnow, i know u know that just being ignorant since u like the broken state of cav now, which is BS but whatever
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,343


    they are because they counter bret cav har dnow, i know u know that just being ignorant since u like the broken state of cav now, which is BS but whatever

    Good luck countering something if you lose 3-4k of value due to Fay alone.
  • KIT1986KIT1986 Registered Users Posts: 104

    What are your toughts on Bretonnia ?

    I feel they are pretty UP at the moment, there is the paladin and fey combo that is pretty powerfull, but it seems like the only good thing and quite cheesy.

    Cavalry are in a very rough spot and its the core of Bret playstyle. Their cav while they are supposed to be the best knights in the old world are not really that good compared to other cav factions. Their infantry is weak and squishy, their special units such as peg knights are too fragile to be a good pick and be really usefull( I still do bring them just for the thematic, but one fate of bjuna basically erradicates the unit).

    Thats just my own personal opinion, what is yours ?

    If you think they are UP what changes do you think they need ?

    the hippogrif knights are one of the best units in the game (for SP ;)) . The royal pegasus knights are the best anti air unit in the game. They kill each other air unit even dragons. But both of them are to expensive for MP. But you are right the current state of the game is really bad for Bretonnia. They should improve Luin and Alberic sucht that you can use them in MP. Using the fey only becoms boring.
  • KIT1986KIT1986 Registered Users Posts: 104
    edited September 4

    Paladins too good, fey also

    But bret is in meh spot because it took people to finally realise that bret cav cannot punish chaff infantry head on, so now people dont take anti cav vs bret anymore they just take generalised infantry, its kinda why you see armies of 10 GW those days vs brets.

    In the past people needed to bring anti large to combat bret cav and thus bret low tier infantry could do decent vs those units and put pressure on opponents ranged/warmachines etc, now opponent can skip spears/halberds and max out on all round infantry that beats bret front line and does well vs cav. I mean you can clearly see issues when WE's switched from pikcing eternal guard to protect their archers vs Cav to dryads...eternal guard would trade bad vs men at arms but good into cav, now dryads can trade well into both.

    The reason its quite clear lately is simply because the cav/ifnantry interaction got a lot of exposure and people have finally adapted their armies.


    Mind you i dont think bret is in that bad spot because fey is still hard caring them, but if she was not there it be sad state almost.

    PS: cav does not need buffs, its the infantry side of the engagement that is overperfroming, cav dmg on charge is fine and acceptable but issue is that they are taking 3x dmg back compared to before, thus unable to punish infantry head on.

    it is too complicated for some people to bring polarms against cav. So CA decided to make alle inf good aginst cav. Maybe they remove cav for part 3 to make it more casual.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    edited September 4
    KIT1986 said:

    Paladins too good, fey also

    But bret is in meh spot because it took people to finally realise that bret cav cannot punish chaff infantry head on, so now people dont take anti cav vs bret anymore they just take generalised infantry, its kinda why you see armies of 10 GW those days vs brets.

    In the past people needed to bring anti large to combat bret cav and thus bret low tier infantry could do decent vs those units and put pressure on opponents ranged/warmachines etc, now opponent can skip spears/halberds and max out on all round infantry that beats bret front line and does well vs cav. I mean you can clearly see issues when WE's switched from pikcing eternal guard to protect their archers vs Cav to dryads...eternal guard would trade bad vs men at arms but good into cav, now dryads can trade well into both.

    The reason its quite clear lately is simply because the cav/ifnantry interaction got a lot of exposure and people have finally adapted their armies.


    Mind you i dont think bret is in that bad spot because fey is still hard caring them, but if she was not there it be sad state almost.

    PS: cav does not need buffs, its the infantry side of the engagement that is overperfroming, cav dmg on charge is fine and acceptable but issue is that they are taking 3x dmg back compared to before, thus unable to punish infantry head on.

    it is too complicated for some people to bring polarms against cav. So CA decided to make alle inf good aginst cav. Maybe they remove cav for part 3 to make it more casual.
    infantry is so bad vs large with 1.10 mechanics that you're better off with antilarge large than polearms....
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,487
    edited September 4
    RawSugar said:

    KIT1986 said:

    Paladins too good, fey also

    But bret is in meh spot because it took people to finally realise that bret cav cannot punish chaff infantry head on, so now people dont take anti cav vs bret anymore they just take generalised infantry, its kinda why you see armies of 10 GW those days vs brets.

    In the past people needed to bring anti large to combat bret cav and thus bret low tier infantry could do decent vs those units and put pressure on opponents ranged/warmachines etc, now opponent can skip spears/halberds and max out on all round infantry that beats bret front line and does well vs cav. I mean you can clearly see issues when WE's switched from pikcing eternal guard to protect their archers vs Cav to dryads...eternal guard would trade bad vs men at arms but good into cav, now dryads can trade well into both.

    The reason its quite clear lately is simply because the cav/ifnantry interaction got a lot of exposure and people have finally adapted their armies.


    Mind you i dont think bret is in that bad spot because fey is still hard caring them, but if she was not there it be sad state almost.

    PS: cav does not need buffs, its the infantry side of the engagement that is overperfroming, cav dmg on charge is fine and acceptable but issue is that they are taking 3x dmg back compared to before, thus unable to punish infantry head on.

    it is too complicated for some people to bring polarms against cav. So CA decided to make alle inf good aginst cav. Maybe they remove cav for part 3 to make it more casual.
    infantry is so bad vs large with 1.10 mechanics that you're better off with antilarge large than polearms....
    Not true the slightest, i suggest doing some testing or research.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    you can test it yourself. demigryph halberds/black guard vs chaos knights, they will both have about the same % health left in 1.10 after defeating the knights, but given demigryph halberds have mobility and can actually force the confrontation vs the knights that makes them the better choice. because bracing is so useless, and braced units get so few attacks while charging knights get all their attacks that the confrontation is only just barely disadvantageous.
  • KIT1986KIT1986 Registered Users Posts: 104
    edited September 4
    RawSugar said:

    you can test it yourself. demigryph halberds/black guard vs chaos knights, they will both have about the same % health left in 1.10 after defeating the knights, but given demigryph halberds have mobility and can actually force the confrontation vs the knights that makes them the better choice. because bracing is so useless, and braced units get so few attacks while charging knights get all their attacks that the confrontation is only just barely disadvantageous.

    Of course demis are the better choice but in general what i want to say is that now it is not neccessary anymore to bring foot inf with polearms (helberds, spears, pikes) against cav. you can bring cheap mid tier greatwwapon inf for the same result. But the greatweapon inf can also kill other inf. This is a simplification! In the old TW games it was common that you need units with polearms against cav. Now because of a bug (or that was on purpose) people don't need to know how to counter cav.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 582
    edited September 4
    RawSugar said:

    KIT1986 said:

    Paladins too good, fey also

    But bret is in meh spot because it took people to finally realise that bret cav cannot punish chaff infantry head on, so now people dont take anti cav vs bret anymore they just take generalised infantry, its kinda why you see armies of 10 GW those days vs brets.

    In the past people needed to bring anti large to combat bret cav and thus bret low tier infantry could do decent vs those units and put pressure on opponents ranged/warmachines etc, now opponent can skip spears/halberds and max out on all round infantry that beats bret front line and does well vs cav. I mean you can clearly see issues when WE's switched from pikcing eternal guard to protect their archers vs Cav to dryads...eternal guard would trade bad vs men at arms but good into cav, now dryads can trade well into both.

    The reason its quite clear lately is simply because the cav/ifnantry interaction got a lot of exposure and people have finally adapted their armies.


    Mind you i dont think bret is in that bad spot because fey is still hard caring them, but if she was not there it be sad state almost.

    PS: cav does not need buffs, its the infantry side of the engagement that is overperfroming, cav dmg on charge is fine and acceptable but issue is that they are taking 3x dmg back compared to before, thus unable to punish infantry head on.

    it is too complicated for some people to bring polarms against cav. So CA decided to make alle inf good aginst cav. Maybe they remove cav for part 3 to make it more casual.
    infantry is so bad vs large with 1.10 mechanics that you're better off with antilarge large than polearms....
    I find this line of reasoning hilarious because people were complaining about cav being bad after the knockback change because they weren't able to pull out of infantry effectively enough to counter charge. They were notably less effective against infantry that was standing still, even infantry that lacked charge defense and should have been counter charging. People were complaining about cav, chariots, and other large beasties performance before the Rakarth patch and it took months for players to realize a second change occurred which massively increased infantry charge damage. Even before that there was a clear consensus that cavalry had been severely weakened and a pivot towards light cav and more conservative deployment of cav charges.

    As to your follow up post about black guard your use of percentage health is misleading, as black guard's lack of mobility is made up for in a larger overall health pool, a lower cost, higher leadership, better generalist combat performance and features such as immune to psychology. After beating the Chaos Knights the Black Guard will have more staying power because they have about 33% more health to begin with, and therefore 33% more health after winning combat.

    Demigryphs will halberds are arguably a better choice against chaos knights (by your test they are less cost efficient), but will be far worse against most units on the chaos roster. Just comparing unit performance in a single match up will skew your assessment because battles involve a large number of individual instances of combat, some of them optimal, many of them suboptimal. Just pointing at a single comparison tells us little about overall unit performance, much less when you are comparing across unit classes.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    edited September 4
    KIT1986 said:

    RawSugar said:

    you can test it yourself. demigryph halberds/black guard vs chaos knights, they will both have about the same % health left in 1.10 after defeating the knights, but given demigryph halberds have mobility and can actually force the confrontation vs the knights that makes them the better choice. because bracing is so useless, and braced units get so few attacks while charging knights get all their attacks that the confrontation is only just barely disadvantageous.

    Of course demis are the better choice but in general what i want to say is that now it is not neccessary anymore to bring foot inf with polearms (helberds, spears, pikes) against cav. you can bring cheap mid tier greatwwapon inf for the same result. But the greatweapon inf can also kill other inf. This is a simplification! In the old TW games it was common that you need units with polearms against cav. Now because of a bug (or that was on purpose) people don't need to know how to counter cav.
    in terms of internal balance within the infantry class the game is much improved atm, GW was somewhat rare, especially chaff GW. I'm gettinng a lot of easy wins these days because ppl are making WAY too much of the countercharge thing and are forgetting how weak GW chaff is outside that specific scenario, but its still nice to see GW chaff used.
    There's good reason to bring polearm over 2H axes, they are about equal on the countercharge vs large, but only a bad player will give you countercharge, and in every other scenario polearm perform better. Polearm chaff is still very niche though. Spears are more generalists and will generally beat GW chaff in head to head, usually have shield etcetc.
    In 1.10 polearm chosen were clearly the better choice because while GW chosen did slightly better in some scenarios, the risk of being targeted by large units was far too great. in 1.12 the two are balanced.
    that goes doubly for units like swordmasters and executioners that in 1.10 were basically powerless vs large, and therefore almost never saw play, and in 1.12, while disadvantaged can at least perform according to their stats vs large.

    spellbound: hitpoints is not the only metric to unit power and thinking number of hitpoints shows how much power a unit has left rather than models and their combatpower shows a ridiculously poor understanding of the game.
    In so far as the job of AL is often to protect ranged AL cavalry is much better at the job than elite halberd because cavalry has the option to intercept while infantry can just wait and hope opponent decides to geronimo into them, and the moment you try to charge with your halberds in 1.10 you open yourself up to being charged by large in which case your AL unit might actually end up LOSING to the unit they are supposedly designed to beat.
    the lack of mobility of a slow unit like infantry is supposed to be greater combat power, taking that away with only compensation being an ability that requires opponent to misplay or literally have no other available targets is not a balanced approach
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 11,487
    edited September 6
    RawSugar said:

    you can test it yourself. demigryph halberds/black guard vs chaos knights, they will both have about the same % health left in 1.10 after defeating the knights, but given demigryph halberds have mobility and can actually force the confrontation vs the knights that makes them the better choice. because bracing is so useless, and braced units get so few attacks while charging knights get all their attacks that the confrontation is only just barely disadvantageous.

    Thats why DE spam cold one knights rather than black guard vs VC yeah? ....... thats why LZM spM cold one riders and carnos over temple guard and saurs spears? Thats why Wood elves spam zoats over eternal gaurd? dragon ogres over chaos halberds? want me keep going? only empire seems to pick demis over halberds and the common trend here is that empire dont have high tier anti large infantry...go figure.

    what kind of comparison is 2 units that cannot be taken together? Would dmeis see lots play in DE roster...maybe, but likely just as much as black guard in empire roster.

    also i think you did not test them at all.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    are you saying you're incapable of comparing black guards to phoenix guards because they arent in the same roster?
    you forgot to compare skeleton spearmen to blood knights, or TK polearm to necropolis knights.... as for which are better, putting aside differences in unit quality/tier etc, it depends on whether mobility is useful. there's defo a role for cold ones vs empire, whereas blackguards are a huge gamble. but sure if you neither need to protect or take out ranged then elite polearm will do better vs infantry than AL large...doesnt change that they are about en par vs large, when the slower unit should be tangibly stronger.
  • Spellbound55Spellbound55 Registered Users Posts: 582
    RawSugar said:

    spellbound: hitpoints is not the only metric to unit power and thinking number of hitpoints shows how much power a unit has left rather than models and their combatpower shows a ridiculously poor understanding of the game.
    In so far as the job of AL is often to protect ranged AL cavalry is much better at the job than elite halberd because cavalry has the option to intercept while infantry can just wait and hope opponent decides to geronimo into them, and the moment you try to charge with your halberds in 1.10 you open yourself up to being charged by large in which case your AL unit might actually end up LOSING to the unit they are supposedly designed to beat.
    the lack of mobility of a slow unit like infantry is supposed to be greater combat power, taking that away with only compensation being an ability that requires opponent to misplay or literally have no other available targets is not a balanced approach

    You're doing that thing again where you respond to a single part of a longer post out of context and ignore points that would be inconvenient for your views. I mentioned multiple metrics when discussing how percentile hitpoints are misleading. At no point did I suggest hit points were the only metric to unit power. That's just something you've attributed to me because actually arguing the points in this thread would be hard for you.

    I didn't think I needed to spell out how hit points have a direct relationship to things like leadership, entity count, damage, etc. But since you don't seem to see that relation let me be clear. A greater number of hitpoints remaining means a larger number of entities surviving since TWW2 distributes hp damage pretty even amongst entities, resulting in a larger number of models surviving than percentile hp suggests. This naturally means the damage potential of high entity units survives better into the late game (excluding single entities for obvious reasons). As such higher hp pools directly translate into units which maintain combat efficacy longer.

    Leadership has a similar relationship, where infantry are better able to survive leadership shocks. Higher health units simply have to take substantially more raw damage to trigger both shock penalties and damage taken penalties because of their larger health pools. Even with the same percentage of health remaining it is going to be easier to rout the cav by magic, ranged fire, or engagement because they can take less damage before taking penalties in the absolute.

    Armor can complicate this since it effectively boosts the actual hp depending on what is attack the unit, but again this effect is going to be more powerful the larger the base health pool of a unit. Health isn't the end all stat in the game but it interacts with most other stats in a way that is not accurately represented by comparisons of percentage.

    Also your example of why cav are better at defense than AL infantry doesn't make a lick of sense. If you have one unit defending and are attacked by two units, a cav and an infantry unit you can't defend your backline. Neither the cavalry or the infantry unit can be in two places at once. You've constructed a bad example that just highlights how being outnumbered is really punishing. The fact that spears can lose to cavalry and infantry at the same time is not news, especially when if the infantry is going to lose then the cost of the two units is definitely greater than the cost of the single unit. Unit cost reflects performance, in other news rain is wet.

    More pointedly the idea that a proactive defense is always superior is commonly held, but one I think is often overrated. One of the risks of high mobility units is that it is easier to misplace them. Infantry designed to sit in place and take a charge has a large potential for error, but basically one point of failure, essentially did I put them where they needed to be at the beginning of the game? Obviously factors of the changing battle will require additional decision making but having your halberds in position to defend your gun line is mostly determined by initial placement.

    Cav on the other hand if you are using them to intercept need to be timed and monitored, you need to gauge when you should be aggressive with them and when holding position is safer. You need to be aware that the unit can be more easily damaged, that they are less resilient, and that they need to produce more value to be worthwhile contributions to the army since on average you could have purchased between 2 to 3 units of infantry for the cost of a single cavalry. Effectively while mobility makes many of these points of failure less dire it also means there are a greater number of ways to fail which depending on both player skill and gamestate may prove less optimal than a single more extreme failure point.

    If you have well placed infantry your opponent is forced to either "geronimo" into your army or try to get a better position, all the while taking shots from the backline your infantry is there to protect. If you are using infantry defensively counter charging is a nice way to increase their performance (and on the current patch is far to powerful in general) but it isn't necessary for the unit to perform it's job. You never need to counter charge because an opponent attacking your defensive units means they aren't attacking your back line. In effect just having a unit be a roadblock is success and your opponent has to get around that. You don't need to intercept you need to use the rest of your army to win the game while your opponent has to figure out how to disrupt you.

    Passive placement effectively generate value at minimal micro tax. This is a substantial source of strength for infantry who compared to cav are a less costly investment that is both less attractive a target and more resilient to a lot of damage sources simply due to the fact that hp in this game is really undervalued (imo).

    Finally, you once again keep asserting that cavalry is a superior combatant to infantry on patch 1.10 which I pointed out is just not true. Without the ability to abuse the knock down mechanic cavalry trades were much poorer and infantries high sustained combat stats were actually being able to be utilized leading to cavalry shifting from a primarily offensive use to a more opportunistic or supportive use, which pushed large numbers of light cav to the fore at the expensive of heavier cavalry. People were discussing this and were suggesting some mass adjustments to improve cavs ability to disengage, but the consensus was that even with such a change rapid cycle charging to avoid return damage was no longer a viable tactic. Then the Rakarth patch came and made infantry world beaters which exacerbated a previously present trend by making heavy cav get dumpstered immediately in infantry trades, rather than just struggle with them. The mass changes on the most recent patch have alleviated that problem somewhat by allowing cav to disengage more smoothly from infantry, but that's kind of overshadowed by the dumpstering previously noted.

    Cav is still usable in that opportunistic or supportive manner and can still be quite effectively but at high levels of play the risk of bringing it becomes high enough that it is detrimental to overall success which is a problem if the game is aiming to be meaningfully competitive rather than something you play with your friends for fun.

    If you are going to engage in discussions with other people please respond to the entirety of the points they have made and stop constructing strawmen. It's rude and frankly a waste of time.
  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    *writes wall of text of nonsense and semirelated points* "please respond to my musings paragraph by paragraph"

    nah mate, im good ill dig out your essential points and respond to those...

    your argument seems to be that mobile units are bad because you cant keep track of them. thats fair. i can and therefore if mobility is important in the matchup i will use mobiliy if it doesnt cost me combat power - it should though, in a balanced game.

    at no point have i said infantry was useless in 1.10, i do maintain that chaff and elite GW infantry were rare because the mechanics are too heavily against them, and i do maintain that bracing is far too weak, making braced infantry a poor point of comparison for how strong a slow and vulnerable to ranged melee unit should be.
Sign In or Register to comment.