Champion cavalry improvements

[Noob Dude]

I think you’re all missing the point. The unit itself can be strong, and that wouldn’t be an issue. The real problem is how it’s used.

Let’s assume there’s a fight between two decent players (and no, I’m not referring to the endlessly repeated pattern of me vs. Decker). One player is using Champion Cavalry, and the other isn’t. The real issue is that even small groups of Champion Cav — even sent one by one — reach the front line very quickly and draw all the focus to themselves.

Because they’re unreasonably resistant to ranged units, they effectively become tanks that shift the entire outcome of the battle. So is the only option to make them weaker? No.

What if we had control over target priorities? Why shouldn’t a ranged unit have options like “target only ranged,” “target low HP,” “target strongest,” “target weakest,” etc.? With just a few smart targeting presets, we could greatly improve balance.

For example, archers that can’t harm champions could instead wipe out the enemy’s entire ranged force — leaving the champions to fight alone. Simple trick. Big impact.

[Deicide4u]

@Noob Dude, I've proposed an improved attack move in one of the more recent threads, as something similar:

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

How much faster compared to infantry do cavalry need to be to have a significant mobility advantage? Do they still have a mobility advantage if they are say 1.5x faster instead of 2x? would that result in less cavalry balance problems?

Also about the automatic targeting preferences, do we want to control the game entirely through menu systems and functions? or should we accept some imperfection of automated systems (like basic unit behavior) so that players can develop skills to outmicro others and win battles?

[chrstgtr]

4 hours ago, Noob Dude said:

The real problem is how it’s used.

. . .

The real issue is that even small groups of Champion Cav — even sent one by one — reach the front line very quickly and draw all the focus to themselves.

This isn’t how players use them, though. 

[Deicide4u]

14 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

This isn’t how players use them, though. 

For real, are people really spending so much APM to dance with their troops? I just send the cavalry to kill archers or whatever then go back to macroing.

[Noob Dude]

14 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Also about the automatic targeting preferences, do we want to control the game entirely through menu systems and functions? or should we accept some imperfection of automated systems (like basic unit behavior) so that players can develop skills to outmicro others and win battles?

It is only how do you understand a STRATEGY game. IMO a strategy is not how fast and where you click. IMO strategy is how well you think. So it is only the question, should we focus on ability to click or ability to think. I'm more than sure that a "strategy" game should focus on second one. Targeting units is pure clicking. Placing troops, retreating, surrounding, using buidlings or terrain as obstacles, this is micro. Well, as you know I'm not the worse in sniping so in general having this solved would reduce my advantage over the other players but still I believe it should be done to make game more intelectually challenging than finger challenging.

"This isn’t how players use them, though. "

I don't know. Maybe they use then in different way but this is the most effective one. The only one you cant really counter. To get your inf army to fight and back this army with some champs that will take insane amout of damage while you are macroing dancing or whatever you want to do.

I stopped playing this alpha at the begining bc of this. I was facing 2 guys, dont remember who but around 1500. And i was doing very well alone v 2 bc i was spamming champs. They realised how game is broken started to build champs 3 min later game was over. Amount of champs was the ONLY factor that mattered in our game. Till I had more champs that them both I was offensive side. They had more champs I got smashed.

Will targeting "fix" only will fix it? Not sure, but best thing I can imagine rn. Maybe their resistance should be lowered aswell.

Making champ cav 2 pop wont fix the problem. Then sending 20-30 champs wont be possible but still using them as super meatshield will be valid ez win no counter strat.

[borg-]

The champion is strong and should remain that way, especially the cavalry. The real problem is how fast you can train this cavalry once you get p3. I mean, you don't see complaints from Han players abusing cavalry. If I'm in Athens, I'll hardly be able to create champion soldiers as fast as Gauls, because I need to build gyms. The real problem is in trainable champions in the barracks and stables, we need to put them in appropriate places, for that, we need new contraction models I think.

[Deicide4u]

I agree with borg, champion cavalry should remain strong. We should, however, either increase the "Unlock Champion Cavalry" tech cost (it's very cheap now), or make champions be trainable only from Fortresses (like unique units are only trainable at Castles in AoE2). And to avoid Fortress spam, increase the cost of it.

[Seleucids]

22 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

make champions be trainable only from Fortresses

This was exactly what we had back in a23 and also what I have been suggesting all the time. Borg has it in the right direction. The champion spam problem didn't exist before A25 because of the production building limit.

[TheCJ]

3 hours ago, Noob Dude said:

Targeting units is pure clicking

Choosing which units to prioritize targeting is a strategic choice. One that might require a decent amount of inputs, but nevertheless a strategic choice.
Regarding champs from fortresses/special buildings; in historical mod, the only champ that is recruited in a base production building is the Persian Immortal. All others got their own building or come from the fortress. This has indeed helped with champion spam.

[Noob Dude]

51 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

Choosing which units to prioritize targeting is a strategic choice. One that might require a decent amount of inputs, but nevertheless a strategic choice.
 

So why not making it one button choice. Not depending of how expensive gear you got to play video game...

[TheCJ]

54 minutes ago, Noob Dude said:

So why not making it one button choice

How would you do that? Just like you can't make recruiting a one-button choice, since you might want certain barracks at certain positions producing certain units and other barracks producing other units, I want some of my ranged units to attack certain enemy units and some of them to attack other units (or even buildings when they're currently under construction, to delay the building being done).
I just don't see how a single button even could do that.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

A change for this alpha is that champs coming from temples and unique buildings train 25% faster.  I could bump that up a bit, maybe 30 or 35%.

The issue I have with training from forts is that you had a situation where forts were just an expensive barracks that you needed a lot of space to put down. In other words, they weren't used defensively. Making them come from forts doesn't change the fact that the unit itself is strong, and it would make melee infantry champs extremely unhelpful.

I think specific units could be moved to forts on an individual level, but I disagree with the formulaic approach of moving all the barracks/stable champs to the fort.

IMO, this tech has to go: 

[chrstgtr]

19 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

IMO, this tech has to go: 

I don't like the tech either. But I don't think it is a big deal as the % increase is just too small. It really only matters in cav vs cav fights. 

The problem is that champ cav can beat their supposed counters (spears) in straight up fights. Until that changes, champ cav will always be the best unit and optimal strategy will require players to spam as many champ cav as possible. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

7 hours ago, Noob Dude said:

Targeting units is pure clicking. Placing troops, retreating, surrounding, using buidlings or terrain as obstacles, this is micro. Well, as you know I'm not the worse in sniping so in general having this solved would reduce my advantage over the other players

Ah yes this I agree with. Sniping is quite undesirable, I'm not in defense of it I'm just against the game working entirely through buttons using optimized automatic behavior. In my personal opinion automated things are ok so long as they are outperformed by manual human control, and unit behavior falls into this category.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I don't like the tech either. But I don't think it is a big deal as the % increase is just too small. It really only matters in cav vs cav fights. 

The problem is that champ cav can beat their supposed counters (spears) in straight up fights. Until that changes, champ cav will always be the best unit and optimal strategy will require players to spam as many champ cav as possible. 

10% is a lot actually. Caracutos (brit speed hero) is 15%. Also, speamen do not need to beat champcav in a 1:1. They currently win decisively in a 2:1 engagement (which is less spearmen than a resource-balanced fight). The issue is that a champcav player will almost never need to take a 2:1 engagement against spearmen.

first you kill some vulnerable economy to buy some time and later strike with closer to a 1:1 ratio. The massive mobility gap allows that (as high as 230% between spearmen and mace champcav+hero), not so much the strength of the unit. Also, such high mobility means champ cav can always be dealing damage, while infantry must spend a lot of time simply walking.

persian and seleucid champ cavs are now "cataphract" units, which are a bit more expensive, and even stronger, but slower. Has anyone else noticed their popularity slip a bit compared to gaul, mace, or roman champ cav?

So I think a few options are good here: close the mobility gap a bit by removing the extremely cheap, global cav speed tech, improve the utility of palisades, walls, and buildings to constrain mobility, and if need be, bump the cav counter up a little.

[Seleucids]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Making them come from forts doesn't change the fact that the unit itself is strong

It has been tested and proven that having <5 very strong units is never a problem and is a fun addition to the boring cs spam. but the number is always the problem. The hero is incredibly strong as an unit but nobody complains, because it is alone. The same applied for fire Cav in A25 and spear champ now. 5 ultra op spear cav can't completely break the game but 40 just slightly above-average merc sword cav broke A25

Edited Thursday at 18:38 by Seleucids

[Atrik]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

IMO, this tech has to go: 

It's the only tech that really feels like usable to 'counter' an enemy p1 start such as camels, but cav spam in general. It allow having the upper hand in p1 cav fights. I wish there were a couple more techs like this actually.

Edited Thursday at 19:24 by Atrik

[Atrik]

6 hours ago, Noob Dude said:

So why not making it one button choice.

@Noob Dude check this if haven't already. I tested with a few players, and it feels rly like great feature that makes micro interesting.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 minutes ago, Atrik said:

It's the only tech that really feels like usable to 'counter' an enemy p1 start such as camels, but cav spam in general. It allow having the upper hand in p1 cav fights. I wish there were a couple more techs like this actually.

You could do this just fine with the hp tech in p1, which would have more of an impact anyway.

I support more targeted techs, unit specific techs, or class specific techs. In fact, I designed a suite of them a while ago for all of the unit categories (longer pikes, buttspike, heavy shot, javelin slings for example), but it wasn't popular. 

the speed tech pretty much just serves to widen the mobility gap between infantry and cav, especially champ cav, save for the occasional cav vs cav p1 situation.

1 hour ago, Seleucids said:

<5 very strong units is never a problem

well that kind of sucks, then you just hardly ever see them. Also, what does that mean for champ melee infantry? They would be even less used.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Seleucids said:

40 just slightly above-average merc sword cav broke A25

Thats because they costed 80 metal, which is almost half the cost of the weaker CS swordcav unit.

[TheCJ]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

improve the utility of palisades, walls, and buildings to constrain mobility

now this, this is beautiful. Make stone walls cheaper, faster to build, a little smaller and with less hp and the "cav problem" is gone.

Because the cav cant realistically engage the actual enemy army (which consists of up to 100 spearman) without heavy losses and with more useful walls, they cant really disrupt your economy (if you prepare sufficiently).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@Seleucids with that said on fortresses, I would like to come up with some more truly unique champion units, not just your "standard" champs, and some of these could make forts their home.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

10% is a lot actually.

Eh. 10% isn’t that much in the cav vs one discussion—cav is already much faster than inf. Getting the Brit speed hero doesn’t suddenly let make inf much better than cav with the tech, for example. Functionally, the tech means you can raid other side of map for an extra second or two before returning to your side to fight inf. That extra second or two doesn’t change that much. 

You also see people forget speed tech and still become dominant because they massed champ cav. That shows there is more going on than the speed tech. 

the cav vs spear example you give isn’t representative of real fights. In real fights, you have a bunch of range killing that spear too. It’s also pretty common that you see a player get a “good exchange on res” with spear vs cav but can’t keep up fight because their pop dropped so much and the backing enemy range units are able to overrun the remaining base  

honestly, haven’t seen any difference with the popularity of sele or Persia champ cav. Sele and Persia have both always been relatively unpopular (esp compared to the civs you mention) bc Persia/sele are slow civs. Persia is just played a little more now because people figured out that immortals are good.

 

[Atrik]

46 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You could do this just fine with the hp tech in p1, which would have more of an impact anyway.

It's not the same. If your border ally is harassed by camels, you can counter it by your own cav (you need less then camels) and having the speed tech makes a big difference. It's unlike another buff of hp/damage.