Jump to content

Sword cav OP?


Yekaterina
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dizaka said:

British/Gaul?

Gaul one because of its 10% attack bonus

British, Maurian and Athenian one have the same stats. I find them to be only slightly op because they can be easily countered by spearmen of their same rank (I would nerf them with a 10% damage not more).

2 hours ago, Dizaka said:

Carthagian Mercs?

Too strong because they are trained to be immediately rank 2. 

2 hours ago, Dizaka said:

Roman Champions?

Insane op (unless they fight against many rank 2/3 spearmen), just nerf them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jofursloft said:

Gaul one because of its 10% attack bonus

British, Maurian and Athenian one have the same stats. I find them to be only slightly op because they can be easily countered by spearmen of their same rank (I would nerf them with a 10% damage not more).

I actually think the Mauryan/Gaul ones are a bit overpowering.  The Athenian/British not so much.

Gauls have +10% attack bonus and champion hero.  Mauryas utilize the P3 sword bonus from blacksmith.  They are only civ that get to utilize that bonus with sword cav.

Other points I agree with (Carthage/Rome).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dizaka said:

They are only civ that get to utilize that bonus with sword cav.

You are right, I didn't think about that. Yet, I think that is a problem that mainly affects team games. For what concerns 1v1 games it's really rare to see a P3 sword cav attack. Usually if you have many cavs you won't need to go P3 because the enemy will surrender before (as in a recent 1v1 against @Lorenz11 where I surrended before he went P3). If the enemy survives, it's probable that he will make enough spearmen to rend that +20% bonus practically unuseful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jofursloft said:

Insane op (unless they fight against many rank 2/3 spearmen), just nerf them. 

I have been saying the armor should be reduced by 2 since they already have more attack than any other champion cavalry.

other champion melee cav reduced by 1 armor.

In my opinion, CS swordcav should have 1 less armor too, because they have extra attack and same armor as cs spearcav.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think base sword cav need a nerf. The civs succeeding with them all have some sort of bonus that impacts sword cav, you don't see Britons or Athenians going ham with them. I hadn't actually seen nor thought of using the Mauryan last blacksmith upgrade with sword cav, but that would put them pretty high up. Personally, I think of the citizen sword cavalry that only the mercenaries are problematic.

For 1v1s, I think it just comes down to people not really knowing how to defend against heavy sword cav play as it requires a different playstyle (for Cartha a really defensive style and even). Scouting your opponent to see if they're on metal and if that's the case then walling up pretty much the whole territory, putting down extra barracks, spamming spearmen, and also going P2 for blacksmith upgrades. Basically just commiting very heavily to P2 and focusing very strong economy and unit production, though it does leave you vulnerable to a basic switch to infantry merc swordsmen. I have a really good example of this in a match vs vinme that I'll upload here too. Exception are Ptolemies and Seleucids who can just demolish them by making merc spear cav.

For TGs they are much more insane. It's very difficult to coordinate walls as you need 4 people to work together on them, which in general makes mobility a far superior choice in teamgames.

CarthaMercCavDef.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ValihrAnt because of the a25 ' archer rebalancing' not many people play Mauryas and it's not a civ people use for cav - Mauryas still have other more effective strategies.  

However, if 15-17 Mauryas cav are raiding enemy bases there's another opening for a full pop push with infantry due to 220 pop.  It's just expensive food wise as eles and cav cost plenty food.  I'd estimate you'd need 65-75 farmers by 11 min to make a double attack (enemy base eco rush+main charge) possible then rebalance the eco onto other resources.  Huge food investment needed between 7-11 min.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

or 1v1s, I think it just comes down to people not really knowing how to defend against heavy sword cav play as it requires a different playstyle (for Cartha a really defensive style and even). Scouting your opponent to see if they're on metal and if that's the case then walling up pretty much the whole territory, putting down extra barracks, spamming spearmen, and also going P2 for blacksmith upgrades. Basically just commiting very heavily to P2 and focusing very strong economy and unit production, though it does leave you vulnerable to a basic switch to infantry merc swordsmen. I have a really good example of this in a match vs vinme that I'll upload here too. Exception are Ptolemies and Seleucids who can just demolish them by making merc spear cav.

I think all of that is true, but I would like to add something to that. a player should try to rush the Carthaginian player. if the Carthaginian player advances early (some like to do it with less than 60 pop), then he is vulnerable at that point. Also the cavalry can be used well for defending as they have 3 hack armor and their speed allows them to partol your borders to see your enemy coming.

33 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

For TGs they are much more insane. It's very difficult to coordinate walls as you need 4 people to work together on them, which in general makes mobility a far superior choice in teamgames.

I don't know if this helps, but what the opposing team could do is to rush the Carthage player with javelin cavalry. If the Carthage player advances with less than 60 population, 30 javelin cavalry will surely be harmful. I think that a team could afford to have 2 players making 15 cavalry per player for rushing. But then again, there is tributes to be sent to the Carthaginian player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ValihrAnt what do you think about bringing swordcav in line with spearcav, with spearcav having a bit more armor but less attack? or should swordcav simply be better than spearcav as they are now?

I think this is especially necessary with champion melee cav, but also reducing all armor of melee champion cavalry would make them more balanced and make them better countered by spearmen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

what do you think about bringing swordcav in line with spearcav, with spearcav having a bit more armor but less attack? or should swordcav simply be better than spearcav as they are now?

I think this is especially necessary with champion melee cav, but also reducing all armor of melee champion cavalry would make them more balanced and make them better countered by spearmen.

What I think could be part of the solution is giving both sword cavalry 4 hack and 3 pierce armor. That would make them a little weaker and I don't see why they should have different armor than spear cavalry. The consular bodyguard could also get the same armor as the cataphract.

I mainly think the mercenaries are a little problematic. Maybe they could use and increase in costs.

When it comes to attack, I would give the spear cav a little more (3.5 hack, 2.5 pierce and 1 second repeat time) and sword cav a little less (6 hack, 0.75 second repeat time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes a lot of sense for the CS and merc cav:

5 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

When it comes to attack, I would give the spear cav a little more (3.5 hack, 2.5 pierce and 1 second repeat time) and sword cav a little less (6 hack, 0.75 second repeat time).

I still think it makes sense to have all melee champion cavalry have reduced armor, as it is too easy to avoid losing them even if they aren't consular bodyguard.

This is why I advocated for -1 for all melee champion spear-cavalry, and -2 for consular bodyguard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I still think it makes sense to have all melee champion cavalry have reduced armor, as it is too easy to avoid losing them even if they aren't consular bodyguard.

To me it feels like that is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. I have to admit that I am not a TG specialist.

If I see champion cavalry being useful in team games, I think there are a few reason for that. Some possible reasons are

1. The player going for cavalry is a more skilled player able to control his troops better.

2. The opposing side does not play optimal.

I suspect that champion cavalry are just now the favourite tool of some skilled players. If champion cavalry gets nerved, they will probably find another favourite tool to wreck opponents. Only if the majority of players would be able to use champion cavalry extremely effective, I would dare to claim that they are problematic.

However I would like to be proven wrong if someone can send me some replays to prove the point. I have to warn you though, I will probably dismiss it as the opposing side misplaying.

 

If you want me to share some replays of 1v1s with merc champions, I could provide some replays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

The player going for cavalry is a more skilled player able to control his troops better.

2. The opposing side does not play optimal.

Usually it has to do with one player, not necessarily the best player, having some extra time before attacking. This is much more punishable in 1v1s, you are right, since if one player is ready to attack early, and the other is still focusing on eco, then it will be very hard to get champions then.It is also more frequent to see one-sided champion situations when teams are imbalanced, because the better team will have more time to boom before fighting.

My main concern about champion cavalry is that spearmen are not a good enough counter for them. It is true, I often go for champion cavalry after my first attack, usually because it is the safest way to spend my extra resources, because it is too easy to keep them alive. Instead of being a safe purchase, I think champions should be a more risky purchase. This means you would get them if you think they will help in the situation, not simply because they are the best unit, with consular bodyguard head and shoulders over the rest.

Have you seen peyo play mercenary cavalry with carthage in TGs? he uses them almost every time and few people see it coming. 

50 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Only if the majority of players would be able to use champion cavalry extremely effective

Keep in mind that you don't need much skill to use champion cavalry effectively on the battlefield, you just need the time and eco advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I don't think base sword cav need a nerf. The civs succeeding with them all have some sort of bonus that impacts sword cav, you don't see Britons or Athenians going ham with them. I hadn't actually seen nor thought of using the Mauryan last blacksmith upgrade with sword cav, but that would put them pretty high up. Personally, I think of the citizen sword cavalry that only the mercenaries are problematic.

That’s observation bias. When I want to go sword cav I choose Gauls or carth. and when I am a different civ but have a carth or Gauls ally I let my ally be the cav player bc their civ is better suited. That doesn’t mean that sword cav isn’t OP. It is. It just means that we won’t see brit players use OP sword cav until carth and Gaul cav is nerfed

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
20 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I don't think base sword cav need a nerf. The civs succeeding with them all have some sort of bonus that impacts sword cav, you don't see Britons or Athenians going ham with them. I hadn't actually seen nor thought of using the Mauryan last blacksmith upgrade with sword cav, but that would put them pretty high up. Personally, I think of the citizen sword cavalry that only the mercenaries are problematic.

That’s observation bias. When I want to go sword cav I choose Gauls or carth. and when I am a different civ but have a carth or Gauls ally I let my ally be the cav player bc their civ is better suited. That doesn’t mean that sword cav isn’t OP. It is. It just means that we won’t see brit players use OP sword cav until carth and Gaul cav is nerfed

I've tried doing normal sword cav in 1v1s and I can just tell you that they don't compare to the Carthaginians and I'm relying on the enemy making pretty severe mistakes unlike being able to just force favourable engagements like with the mercenaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

That’s observation bias. When I want to go sword cav I choose Gauls or carth. and when I am a different civ but have a carth or Gauls ally I let my ally be the cav player bc their civ is better suited. That doesn’t mean that sword cav isn’t OP. It is. It just means that we won’t see brit players use OP sword cav until carth and Gaul cav is nerfed

I don't believe the 10% attack makes gauls significantly better than britons. If you want to do a very early cavalry build, britons are better by virtue of a better eco. However that does not mean it is a good strategy. Regular sword cavalry is good, but it is not OP.

Carthaginians are an entirely different story.

Edited by LetswaveaBook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I've tried doing normal sword cav in 1v1s and I can just tell you that they don't compare to the Carthaginians and I'm relying on the enemy making pretty severe mistakes unlike being able to just force favourable engagements like with the mercenaries.

2 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

I've tried doing normal sword cav in 1v1s and I can just tell you that they don't compare to the Carthaginians and I'm relying on the enemy making pretty severe mistakes unlike being able to just force favourable engagements like with the mercenaries.

 

maybe. 1v1s are a different animal—I am speaking more to team games. 
 

I also seriously question whether the problem with carth’s cav is that it is too strong as a merc or that it is so cheap as a merc and the unlimited number of embassies makes it easier to spam merc cav (and more of them at any time) than normal cav. If this is the problem, I think we should consider making mercs more expensive 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@chrstgtr @ValihrAnt

I think a way to nerf swordcav in general (champion, mercenary, and CS), is to reduce armor. It is obvious these things are OP, even for civs that do not have the best bonuses for them. 

1. Spearcavalry are inferior in general, and should be brought to the same overall power as swordcav 

2. We don’t want to make cavalry more powerful

3. swordcavalry are op across multiple categories (cs merc champ)

I think it does not make sense to give swordcav the same total damage and total resistance as spearcavalry. I think there is more differentiation between the two when swordcav have less armor and more attack than spearcav.

we can leave the high damage of swordcav, but reduce armor in the right amounts per category (merc or champ or cs). The goals of this are to: allow Spears and spearcav to more effectively counter them, and to establish a more separated role for them.

I am not sure, but in a25, do 10 swordcav beat 10 spearcav (assuming no bonuses by upgrade or hero)

If so, then it makes a lot of sense to nerf the broad category of swordcav.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I am not sure, but in a25, do 10 swordcav beat 10 spearcav (assuming no bonuses by upgrade or hero)

I ran some 1v1 tests for rank 1 CS and that might give an impression.

Spear cav vs. sword cav: Spear wins with 28 HP left. (sword would win a 10 vs. 9 battle)

Spear cav. vs Javelin cav: Spear wins with 3 HP left.

Sword cav vs. Javelin cav: Javelin cav wins with 1 HP left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Spear cav vs. sword cav: Spear wins with 28 HP left. (sword would win a 10 vs. 9 battle)

Spear cav. vs Javelin cav: Spear wins with 3 HP left.

Sword cav vs. Javelin cav: Javelin cav wins with 1 HP left.

It is kind of amazing how close the fights were. At least for CS swordcav, it seems only some smaller changes are necessary, like you talked about earlier. In my opinion, the spearcav should win a bit more readily against the swordcav, since swordcav are better against everything else.

What do you think about the javelin cavalry being able to beat swordcav?

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

swordcav is OP, but is not the only OP unit. javeliners are OP, pikemen too. swordcav stands out because of merc swordcav rush, more than anything else. Also gaul sword cavalry can snowball awfully thanks to promotions that don't really affect ranged units nor meatshilds.

Champion swordcav is tremendous, I don't think a unit so strong really fits into a game like 0 AD, they remind me starcraft battlecruisers. but it's also reasonably easy to counter with spearcav (cs or better, champion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alre said:

well it wouldn't fix the fact that a javeliner can kill a spearman 1v1, whithout moving and without needing to leverage his superior mobility.

I thought this was not true. So I ran a test. In most cases, the spearman wins and promotes and has 19 HP left (without obstructions&micro). That is not an impressive win. Javelins should only be effective if they are not being hit IMHO, but they do decent in this match-up. So that is something to think about.

The stats did not change that much between A25 and A24 and I argued before that melee seems to behave mostly like meat-shields and it still does in some way. I have held the opinion that all ranged units did to much damage. With the new path-finding that might not be true for archers anymore.

3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

It is kind of amazing how close the fights were. At least for CS swordcav, it seems only some smaller changes are necessary, like you talked about earlier. In my opinion, the spearcav should win a bit more readily against the swordcav, since swordcav are better against everything else.

What do you think about the javelin cavalry being able to beat swordcav?

First of all, we see just as for the infantry, the ranged units are very strong. The Javelin cavalry has a DPS of 14.4 compared to 8.67 for the swordsman. The Javelin cavalry also has remarkable defense with a decent hack defense of 3 and the HP difference is relatively smaller than in the infantry case. However as the ranged unit promote, they do not gain as much as the melee cavalry. The ranged cavalry is also slower than their opponent, which is bad situations where units rely on mobility. The superior mobility makes that javelin cavalry is not a good counter to sword cavalry. The javelin cavalry has its armor really set up to do well against swordsmen but it fails against ranged or pole-armed infantry. I don't think these results against sword cavalry are problematic.

For the spear cavalry against the sword cavalry. 28 HP does not directly mean it is a good counter for two units of comparable price. The spear cavalry has the advantage, but a minor advantage in numbers or in upgrades can swing the advantage to the sword cavalry. In a 1v1 of infantry spearman vs. sword cavalry, the cheaper spearman promotes and wins with 48 HP. Also again we see that armor for the spear cav is good in this match-up, while in most encounters you would prefer pierce armor. If we compare DPS of both units, the sword cavalry has 8.67 and the spear cavalry has 5.6 (5.6*1.75=9.8 against cavalry). The spear cavalry(with 160HP) is more expensive than an infantry swordsman, but the infantry swordsmen comes on top with 2 hp in a 1v1 . In a 1v1 against an infantry swordsman the sword cavalry (with 160 HP) wins with 52 HP remaining. ). I think it is fair to say that the spear cavalry under-performs a little in general and is only decent against other cavalry, but not against many other units (It wins with 56 HP left against skirmishers in 1v1, who are cheaper and should get crushed. In equal resource situations, the skirmishers win with 3v2, for slingers it can go both ways).

Also sword cavalry has 1 more advantage: Hack damage is uncommon and not everyone always gets full hack armor.

So I would think that reducing sword cavalry DPS to 6/0.75=8 and increasing the DPS of spear cavalry against infantry to (3.5+2.5)/1.0=6 (against cavalry 6*1.75=10.5) would seem justified. Slingers and javelineers (including cav) need to see a small damage reduction as well (5-10%) IMHO. Also I would like to give sword cavalry the same armor as spear cavalry as I do not think that there is a historical reason why they should have different armor values.

On top of that, I accept there are sword cavalry in the game but in history cavalry used javelins, bows or spears way more frequently.

On 22/09/2021 at 6:45 PM, ValihrAnt said:

I've tried doing normal sword cav in 1v1s and I can just tell you that they don't compare to the Carthaginians and I'm relying on the enemy making pretty severe mistakes unlike being able to just force favourable engagements like with the mercenaries.

Maybe sword cavalry (or spear cavalry for others) in the stables in p1 could be a nice change of balance for Gauls and Athenians. I don't know if the Gauls deserve the +10% in p1. It is not like lots of players build stables in p1 anyway. I would also be in favour of moving the +10% HP upgrade to p1 and the speed upgrade to p2. In cavalry engagements speed is more important than +10% hp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...