I certainly don't want infantry to be ineffective at holding points and I do understand the fact that this isn't a bug (infantry being useful and important is a strength of the mode that land battles have struggled with), but I do think you're underselling the value of cheap infantry here. One major issue with infantry below 500 cost is that you can bring two of them for every cavalry unit, every expensive infantry units, and even for some mid cost missile units (though in this case the ratio is closer to 1.5). This creates an issue where damage dealers can only target one of the two units, and units that aren't taking damage don't rout particularly quickly. Additionally given the capture weight disparity you have to rout all infantry to meaningfully start capturing if you're contesting solely with non-infantry units, something which leaves factions like Cathay with slow infantry and extremely limited vanguard options in an awkward place. Frankly put, if I crush a cheap unbraced infantry unit with a devastating cavalry charge from an elite cavalry unit, that should swing capture weight in my favor on a point. Currently it doesn't which discourages offensive infantry use in a lot of scenarios.DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:
Some of this is the intended result of the game mode, not a feature to be fixed. When you have to stand on a point to capture it, that will always create a different dynamic between melee and ranged than existed previously where ranged units using all ammo in the end game was the optimal play.Spellbound55 said:
Fixed implies no further tweaking is necessary which I don't think is true. It's certainly better on patch 1.2, but that's largely because missile units can now reliably deal damage, not because missile units are in general efficient at contesting points. As a supporting tool for infantry they're able to be effective but quite often bringing additional infantry is a superior option based on how capture weight rewards quantity of infantry units. Kislev embodies this pretty well actually since in spite of being a missile heavy army they still are very prone to melee grinds to win games, with missiles being used to help keep enemy infantry off of points. After winning a point missiles become a substantially more effective tool, but that's because they're very good at keeping units off of points when supporting your own infantry, not because shooting factions off of a point is currently efficient.
Nope, 1.2 fixed the melee grind. SL is the weakest faction in Dom right now and they have highest burst dmg, go figure.Theo91 said:
Was this discussion in reference to domination mode? that mode seems to favour factions which can either burst damage or grind damage. Both have their merits, and this seems to be largely driven on how you bring reinforcements in.AuroraOurania said:
The reason I bring this up is that, talking to higher level players on Turin's multiplayer discord around when WH3 had come out, the main one where discussion of tournament style play (so with rules for land battles and occasional emergency rule changes to deal with bugs/severe balance issues in domination) the consensus seems to be that star dragons can be taken with a lot of healing, but that you're hurting yourself, and other dragons, especially on rosters without as much access to healing, are just straight up bad.
More 'balanced' styles like Cathay and Kislev seem to struggle. Factions like DE and HE i think will find domination tricky which i think is why dragons will seem bad. in Land battles dragons i'm guessing will be more effective because the goal wont be to either grind out or quickly blitz capture points
Note that Slaanesh can be the weakest faction while it is still true that infantry grinds are favored. Slaanesh has the least sticky infantry out of any faction in game 3. Cathay infantry is pretty resistant to damage and Celestial Dragon Guard are a respectable holding infantry at their price and Slaanesh is uniquely vulnerable to missile units which allows Cathay to go fairly wide against the faction while still getting value out of their missiles. Kislev also sees a big benefit from this, being quite proficient at getting missile value while still favoring melee grinds. Effectively, burst damage isn't an effective tactic when the capture weight of your burst damage units makes them unable to capture points without having erased all of the enemy units on a point.
Again, it's substantially better than 1.1 but as long as every infantry unit has the same capture value, and that capture value is at least double any non-infantry unit in the game, infantry will not just be optimal, but will be necessary to capture and hold points. Cheap infantry will be too efficient at holding against anything that isn't just better infantry because mid tier cav or war beasts counts as 1/4 the capture value of 2 low tier infantry units, despite having the same cost. It's a very addressable issue but if we don't acknowledge it's presence than it won't get addressed.
Ranged units have received some compensation for this that helps them in other parts of the game (terrain more important and chokes mean they are often harder to compromise and have better positions to fire from, being able to keep artillery near reinforcement points allows it to be much easier to protect) but now they are not a late game win condition, they are a "kill units in the early/mid game unit or provide support when pushing forward off points". It also means that hybrid units now have a more interesting use cases where they can engage on points in melee much more readily depending on what is most important in the moment.
I think cavalry getting a capture weight bump to 4 might be warranted, but cav is still excellent in Dom due to how important movement between points is as well as the difference in time from reinforcing to getting into combat.
In terms of cheap infantry (<500) being too good at holding, I'd say most cheap infantry currently is quite bad at holding (gnoblars/peasant spears/marauders). They have decent cap weight but rout so quickly it doesn't matter. And part of the balance is that, yes, when fighting on a point an infantry unit will outcap a cavalry one. But cavalry are much quicker and can engage before the infantry get to the point to make it about trading/follow up. Unbreakable units are of course much better at holding and there are lots of those in the mid range for infantry currently (+Spawn) but I think these factions are in for a bit of a rude surprise against the more fleshed out factions in IE.
Much of the observed gameplay is a result of unbreakable rosters and limited rosters as opposed to anything requiring domination-wide fixes. A small bump to cavalry cap weight should be on the cards if how IE plays warrants it, but ranged units are doing well now in the context of the factions we have. </p>
That difficulty in removing capture weight is substantially less of a problem when the units doing the killing also bring significant capture weight, hence the strong performance of melee rush tactics and monstrous infantry. Additionally this strongly favors aggressive infantry factions and can leave defensive infantry in an awkward place.
As for cavalry being "excellent in domination" I think that's a very hard point to argue for. The only faction that prior to multiple buffs was regularly using cavalry was Slaanesh, and they're easily the faction struggling the most currently. I don't think cavalry is bad by any stretch of the imagination but primarily cavalry is used in a support role and trying to directly capture a point with it is quite weak. Whether cavalry should get a capture weight bump or infantry a capture weight nerf is arguable, but currently cavalry is a bit too ineffective when it comes to capturing or maintain hold of a point, hence the common use of cheap cavalry to stop up infantry rather than to contest points. Winning combat is less important than being a road block, which is a bit weird.
I don't think this is primarily the result of unbreakable rosters, only Kislev brings mass unbreakable infantry. The normal daemon units are often easier to remove than the mortal ones. Daemonic instability and Banishment aggressively punish losing daemons without adequate support, and while spawn are incredible sources of capture weight at their price they're inadequate to maintain captures independent of infantry support. Normally if a Daemon faction is holding a point it's because they are winning combat there, not because they don't rout. I'd argue only Nurgle really feels like an unbreakable faction and that's largely because of their powerful healing. The Daemon factions benefit from having lots of and specifically powerful melee infantry which makes it easy to use their capture weight effectively. This strength will be shared by factions like the Beastmen, Norsca, and WoC even though they lack Daemon units.
I've pointed this out early, but a combination of lowering infantry capture value a bit (I'd shoot for 4, no changes to anything else) plus the addition of a system which increases capture weight based on tier (x1.0, x1.5, x2.0) discourages the extreme focus on cheap infantry, makes blocking with cavalry a less powerful use of resources, and can increase the capture impact of missile damage by increasing the value of target priority and lowering the number of infantry that need to be removed to swing a capture. Infantry does need to be key for capturing points, but currently melee infantry gives a bit too much for their price, especially when looking at the cheap end. Such a system rewards price with capture weight, but still leaves infantry with a significant advantage, and still means going wide by price givens you a capture weight advantage (2 peasant spearmen outweigh jade halberd, even though they cost the same price, but by a less extreme amount than they do currently).