Jump to content

Sword cav OP?


Yekaterina
 Share

Recommended Posts

Suggestion: give them a negative bonus against structures, so that they cannot be used as siege weapons. 

Explanation:

1. Cavalry were not used, and cannot be used, to hack down buildings like a fortress. 

2. Cavalry shouldn't be used as a replacement for siege weapon. It encourages the player to spam 60 sword cav and skip siege engines or elephants.

I am not against sword cav being very effective units in a raid or a bigger fight, I just think that chopping down fully garrisoned forts as Megatron said is too much. I have spotted many players using mercenary sword cav or Roman champion cav as siege weapons. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree, they are insane strong. In the chat he is talking about me: in that match I faced a fort+cc without an army to defend it. I also had 2 eles (1 died soon) which helped me to take down the cc and weaken the fort. Then my ele died and I faced another full garrisoned fort: my sword cav (about 40) + jav cavs (about 40) + some arch + spearmen were able to take it down in about 30 secs. 

The fact is that I faced the fort alone, there wasn't an army to protect it. The army was already dead. 

Take into account my army was composed by 100+ soldiers. it's possible to take down a fort even with full infantry if you have enough. 

This said, my doubt is: if we make units less strong against buildings how is it possible to take down a turtle city with a lor of forts? If I send rams there are swords garrisoned, if I send eles there is an army ready to kill them, if I send catas they are just too slow to be effective in a match where I had to be as fast as possible. I think this would just encourage turtling. 

Anyway, I still think sword cavs are too op, so just lower their hp or damage, but don't make units (cavs or infantry) less effective against buildings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sword cav is OP, I have already compared them to axe cav to show how far superior they are, without even considering their effectiveness against buildings, which isn't so relevant in the balance of the game (if you chop down enemy cc with cav, you have won anyway).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jofursloft said:

, if I send catas they are just too slow to be effective in a match where I had to be as fast as possible. I think this would just encourage turtling. 

Exactly. I think we should buff catas,  that will solve the problem with swordcav and turtling. 

Current problem is, catas are not accurate enough, and sometimes they refuse to shoot. They also have a big minimum range, which is inconvenient. 

My suggestion: increase accuracy, decrease max range and min range. Leave other stats constant. This prevents turtling but also prevents cata from being too OP like A23. 

(although I  loved the A23 models for catas and their fire art effect)

If your opponent is using many catas on you, get sword cav to hack them down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, alre said:

(if you chop down enemy cc with cav, you have won anyway).

Well, on more than 1 occasions, reza-math came to my base with 50 sword cav, went straight for cc, leaving most other units unharmed. This is often the case when I have taken all units out of my base to hit his other allies. He could just use his sword cav to chop down our CC 1 by 1 without losing many, and their agility and speed prevents us from being able to withdraw our troops. 

If he came with siege and infantry instead, we can use women to hack siege and draw back the troops to deal with his infantry. 

Right now they are cheap elephants but flying around the map to devastate your bases at lightening speeds. 

Edited by Yekaterina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, alre said:

sword cav is OP, I have already compared them to axe cav to show how far superior they are, without even considering their effectiveness against buildings, which isn't so relevant in the balance of the game (if you chop down enemy cc with cav, you have won anyway).

I disagree. Ax cav can be effectively used for anti-building missions, for example sneaky attacks. Only persians have them btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are sword cav op? Or are mercenary sword cav op? There's a huge difference between them. Mercenary sword cav beat spearmen confidently. Normal sword cav get destroyed by spearmen, even gaul sword cav get beaten by spearmen very well. There's a reason why you don't see people doing sword cav with the Athenians, Britons, Mauryas often.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

There's a huge difference between them

The only difference is that merch are automatically trained rank 2 (and I think it makes sense). If you see stats of merch and not merch sword cavs are the same. An army of "normal" sword cavs is exactly as op as an army of merch sword cavs if they rank up. The problem is not about ranking, the problem is about sword cavs themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Player of 0AD said:

I disagree. Ax cav can be effectively used for anti-building missions, for example sneaky attacks. Only persians have them btw

right. and sword cav is much stronger still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All cav honestly seems pretty OP to me. I don’t know if I’ve seen a game where the first team to mass cav didn’t win. 
 

The problem is that cav move so fast with the pathfinder, so Cav never need to take a bad fight. 
 

This pathfinder issue/speed issue is most obvious when sword cav swarm units and seemingly don’t die despite facing a large number of units. This occurs because the melee cav are basically right on top of each other so despite being under attack for several seconds no cav die bc different units are being attacked. 
 

it is also very evident when a decent number of cav run past/through a group of unorganized men and non of the cav die because the cav navigate so fast now that projectiles don’t hit them. 
 

the second scenario above is why I think cav should be slowed down instead of decreasing other stats. AKA I shouldn’t ever be able to run 10 cav through a loose group of 50 skirms and only lose 1 or 2 units

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

Are sword cav op? Or are mercenary sword cav op? There's a huge difference between them. Mercenary sword cav beat spearmen confidently. Normal sword cav get destroyed by spearmen, even gaul sword cav get beaten by spearmen very well. There's a reason why you don't see people doing sword cav with the Athenians, Britons, Mauryas 

the spearman only ever beat normal cav if the cav take the fight. As it stands, cav can always wiggle out of a fight if they want. And can often force a fight if they want. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

Are sword cav op? Or are mercenary sword cav op?

I think sword cav are good and being a mercenary is good. So those two combined are OP in my view. I think normal sword cavalry is not problematic and other mercenaries aren't as problematic either.

If we look at the stats, we see that a regular sword cavalry costs  100 food, 40 wood and 10 metal. A mercenary cavalry costs 80 metal and is significantly stronger. They are to cheap for what they offer. Do you think it is a good idea to have a unit at 2/3rd of the cost being 25% stronger? Do you think it is a balanced that a basic sword cavalry has preferable defenses and a DPS of 8.67 while spear cavalry has 5.6 (9.8 against cavalry).

 

I think the numbers give a clue on what to expect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Angen said:

But you get 100 food and 40 wood (generally) easier compared to 70 metal

Not true. It’s half the res with shorter walking distances. Only true to the extent metal is scarce, which isn’t particularly true anymore

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the best way to balance the situation would be to reduce hp and or armor to below that of spearcavalry. This would also help balance consular bodyguard. At the champion level I think a further broadside 1 armor reduction for all melee champ cavalry would be nice.

The reason for reducing armor is to decrease the amount they can beat spears.

The most telling aspect of sword cav (especially the carth merc cav) being op is that they can trade quite well with an equal size of spearmen. In my opinion, even champion melee cav should certainly lose to 25% more spearmen.

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

the spearman only ever beat normal cav if the cav take the fight. As it stands, cav can always wiggle out of a fight if they want. And can often force a fight if they want. 

I would be in favor of implementing cavalry momentum and acceleration for this reason. If the cavalry player takes a bad fight he should take a bit longer to disengage and save his cavalry. (turns at a set radius above 10 m/s, standard unit movement for speeds under 10 m/s)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, alre said:

if you chop down enemy cc with cav, you have won anyway).

yes so the cc and fort discussion is not really what makes them op, it is what allowed them to kill the army that was there to protect the fort and cc XD.

Also, Pudim did this versus Iberians with javelin cavalry recently

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

In my opinion, even champion melee cav should certainly lose to 25% more spearmen.

On one side we have an elite fighter costing 330 resources and the other side consist of amateurs worth 100 resources. I think melee camp cav deserve to do well against them, even if slightly outnumbered. What I could agree with is that higher level spear/pikemen get a larger attack multiplier against cavalry.

3 hours ago, Angen said:

But you get 100 food and 40 wood (generally) easier compared to 70 metal

The problem with this reasoning is that (first of all it is not true): it speaks only "generally". I would accept that if metal is more common than wood on particular maps, then mercenaries should dominate. However if there is an abundance of all resources to collect, the units should be well balanced. In my views we should not take scarcity of resources into consideration for balance. Also even if the cost of the units was comparable, one is still significantly better than the other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

By the way: I just tested and a consular body guard defeats a champion pikeman.

But remember consular body guard is special.

Do you mean that it should remain the way it is? or are you commenting about how powerful they are this alpha?

I don't think consular bodyguard should not have more attack and more armor than other champion cavalry. I think it already does more damage than other cavalry so it should have less armor.

38 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

On one side we have an elite fighter costing 330 resources and the other side consist of amateurs worth 100 resources. I think melee camp cav deserve to do well against them, even if slightly outnumbered. What I could agree with is that higher level spear/pikemen get a larger attack multiplier against cavalry.

4 hours ago, Angen said:

versus champion cavalry, citizen soldiers would never make it to rank 3. Unless of course they fought a few times before and survived. I agree that champion cavalry should still beat citizen soldiers spearmen 1 to 1, but I think it should not be by such a wide margin as it is now. Do you think it is reasonable to drop 1 armor for both hack and pierce off of all champion melee cavalry and then 1 extra for consular bodyguard?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Do you mean that it should remain the way it is? or are you commenting about how powerful they are this alpha?

I mean they always seemed weird to me from a design perspective. Rome was not known for its powerful cavalry, yet it gets the most powerful cavalry unit. Also they are significantly more powerful than the champion spear cavalry.

 

13 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Do you think it is reasonable to drop 1 armor for both hack and pierce off of all champion melee cavalry and then 1 extra for consular bodyguard?

For reference most melee champion infantry get double the HP and attack and +3 armor. I think champion spear cavalry follows the same trend as them getting double the attack, but get +4 armor and 300 instead of 320 hp. That +1 armor effectively is about the same as 333 HP, so there is not that much of a difference. I could agree if people because of aesthetics suggested to make it +3 armor and 320 HP.

The fact is citizen infantry can gather resources and champions can't. If you have an citizen army, and decide to replace a certain group of the army, the obvious choice seems to replace the part of your army that can't work efficient: Cavalry. I think that is part of the reason why it is so popular to replace your citizen cavalry with champion cavalry as it does not affect the work force.

Also, I think we should view the entire situation and not just adjust one unit because we had bad experiences with it. The idea that only 1 unit(spear cavalry champion) is problematic seems an oversimplification to me. We need to look at the bigger picture.

On 16/09/2021 at 11:56 AM, Yekaterina said:

Well, on more than 1 occasions, reza-math came to my base with 50 sword cav, went straight for cc, leaving most other units unharmed. This is often the case when I have taken all units out of my base to hit his other allies.

I think player need to adjust to the new reality. If all your units are out of your base, it does not matter if it are 60 mauryan sword cavalry or 40 champion spear cavalry. In a world where these strategies are employed, you could employ these strategies yourself as well or build a big stone wall around your base.

Maybe it is easy to say this from a sideline, but suppose a game with player 1-4 on team 1 against player 5-8 you are a spartan pocket(Lets call you player 2). Then in a world like this (200 pop game), the opposing pocket (Lets call him player 6) goes for 40 champion cavalry. I am assuming both flank players (player 1&5) are fighting a full war with each other and cannot afford to distribute resources to . Both pocket players should probably keep 150 units at your base. The other allied pocket player (Lets call him player 3,) on your team probably needs 40 champion cavalry. The Spartan player should create 50 champions to help your his player. So now the opposing flank is in trouble and player 6 needs to help him. If player 6 sends a large body of citizen infantry, that should be noted by the team and player 3 should see that as an invitation to wreck base of players 6. So that is not the best option. Helping player 5 with 40 champion cavalry against 50 spear champions is not an advisable strategy for player 6 either. So that means player 6 would need to counter. Either player 6 needs to attack player 1 or 2. Player 2 is the spartan player that has 150 units at home. Killing a 50 women of players 1 is possible, but then we would get in a situation where player 2 has 150 working units at home and he could easily send lots of resources towards player 1. If the women are killed and player 1 get enough resources, it only means player 1 has some free population space and can now field a larger army. So player 5 now need to worry about 160 units that player 1 is sending his way and the 50 champions of player 6. Off course, games probably wont go as you would predict on paper. This scenaria is purely fictional, but there is I have not seen any ideas why it would or wouldn't work. The big question is if there is no counter or whether people just did not adapt to the new balance. I think the if pocket players would adapt to the idea that you need to have units to defend your base, the cavalry threat can be dealt with. Also I suppose each team needs 1 player to go cavalry to be able to punish any opponent neglecting his defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Also, I think we should view the entire situation and not just adjust one unit because we had bad experiences with it. The idea that only 1 unit(spear cavalry champion) is problematic seems an oversimplification to me. We need to look at the bigger picture.

I was talking about all melee champion cavalry, including consular bodyguard. It is also worth noting that I have only had good experiences with champion cavalry when I was the one using them lol. Occasionally I have been able to counter consular bodyguard by using spear infantry in front of iber javelin champions. Of the champion cavalry, consular bodyguard have the most armor/hp and the most damage of any champion melee cavalry, this is the main reason why I suggest the 2 armor reduction from bodyguard and the 1 armor reduction to spearcav champions. They will still be very powerful after this change, but players need to be smart with them, rather than just spamming them, knowing they can beat anything the enemy has (except champion spearmen, which are rarely seen).

3 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

The fact is citizen infantry can gather resources and champions can't. If you have an citizen army, and decide to replace a certain group of the army, the obvious choice seems to replace the part of your army that can't work efficient: Cavalry. I think that is part of the reason why it is so popular to replace your citizen cavalry with champion cavalry as it does not affect the work force.

 

Usually, people do not seek to replace part of their population (unless they need to do some "femicide" after using fertility festival), or leave some in reserve for champions. Usually, what happens is people send a CS army to go fight, and they suffer depopulation, but by that time they have a large amount of resources due to leaving around 50 men and 50 women at base, so instead of retraining into citizen soldiers, they will train champions. 100-120 units is more than enough to support a continual presence of 40+ champion cavalry, so there is not really an economic loss to training them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...