Jump to content

suggestion about cav ...


Recommended Posts

There's 2 things that comes on my mind to keep CAV as it should remain to be  : a rushing unit and not a darn spam unit

-> remove their ability to capture  ( debatable )

--> Limit their pop cap to 15%-20% of total pop (undebatable , it must be)

 

People gonna say, yes but cav cost 50 food more  .. i would answer that since you lose your cav at very slower rate than infantery, they cost on the field,  less.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good suggestions here but please don't overnerf cavalry units. I spam them because their fast walking speed allows you to save yourself and your allies in time. 

My suggestion would be to either lower their health and armour or keep their attack values identical to infantry (except for spear cavalry). There is no reason why your arrows or javlins will hurt more just because you are sitting on a horse. Riding cavalry makes you less agile at chopping people with swords. 

Units in 0ad have to shoot while standing stationary so the relative velocity argument is invalid here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought cav were a little too strong this alpha. I've thought the two most problematic aspects of cav are:

 

(1) Their ability to capture barracks super fast because this allows a very small and fast group to counterattack and eliminate an enemies' production abilities. This can easily be fixed by lowering their capture attack, which increased from 2 in a23 to 2.5 in a25; and 

(2) Their strength relative to inf. A simple nerf to any of their attack/health stats (i.e., dmg, health, and/or armor values). I don't think this should be a big nerf, but they do feel slightly too strong. Alternatively, they could become more expensive, which would make them more difficult to spam. I think a cost nerf is less preferred because that will impact early game more. 

 

I'm not a fan of the changing pop cost because that doesn't change their underlying strength, which is the real problem, and only limits the number of units that you can make of them, which mostly limits their production only when players are at max pop. I'm also just not a fan of limiting what units players can build, so a hard cap (i.e., 15% of total pop) is less favorable--I think we should just adjust the underlying stats and lets players make what they want. 

Edited by chrstgtr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Cavalry = 2 pop

I think champ cav = 2 pop. This should be the case.

For other cavs.

  1. for merce add wood cost. like 80 wood and 80 meal.
  2. For normal cav make wood cost 100. So, 100 food and 100 wood. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think cav should be 2 pop.

Cav spam can be annoying when players use them as a replacement for infantry, just because they are stronger and do more damage.

I would prefer the mobility being the primary advantage over infantry, so a damage nerf should be fine here.

One issue (which I have attempted to address) is that cavalry can see much farther than infantry, which makes them much harder to track down and kill. I think the best approach is to fix gameplay so that cavalry counters are more effective.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the overall sentiment that mobility is the main advantage of cavalry units and, as such, should come at a higher cost than just resources. I can accept them being mobile and having high damage (since a charge mechanic isn't available yet). The cost would be reduced durability. An overall reduction of Hitpoints and low armor values. This would emphasize they role as skirmishers and reduced their value as main combat units. I would also agree with a reduction of their ability to capture buildings, as they should be viewed as raiders, not a domination force (which would be the infantry's role).

===================================

Using base melee infantry units as baseline (100HP ; 5 armor) i would suggest that melee cav units have 100HP or less ; 3 armor or less.

As for the ranged cavalry, the same HP and armor stats of it's infantry counterparts (since then they would have the double advantage of being mobile and ranged).

===================================

It would basically treat mobility as a higher valued attribute, the same way "Range" is treated.

--------------------------------

TL;DR Keep cost, damage and mobility. Reduce durability stats to get in line or below their infantry counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that cavalry (in particular javelin cavalry) are a bit op this alpha. There are certainly more obviously OP units around like firecav or merc cav, but I have gradually observed that most civs all tend to prefer transitioning to javelin cavalry as the game goes on, and that suggests to me that it is for most purposes the best unit.

Some players have been simply using javelin cavalry as an alternative to javelin infantry, without even utilizing much of the mobility benefits. Javelin cavalry have +2 attack which grows to +4 attack after all upgrades, as well as extra hack armor and more than 2x the hp. 

I think we should consider simply reducing the damage of javelin cavalry

 

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I did some cav testing in RC2 of a26 and it seems without micro, spearcav get consistently beaten by equal numbers of javelin cavalry. I think it would be appropriate to reduce javelin cavalry damage by 2 from 18 to 16.

I failed to reproduce these result in the RC of a26, but I am not sure if I am on RC2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I did some cav testing in RC2 of a26 and it seems without micro, spearcav get consistently beaten by equal numbers of javelin cavalry. I think it would be appropriate to reduce javelin cavalry damage by 2 from 18 to 16.

the amount matters.

try 10 vs 10 and 50 vs 50, even 70 vs 70.

the difference is that most of the spearcav have to path and find a target during which time 100 percent of the skirm cav can attack.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I did some cav testing in RC2 of a26 and it seems without micro, spearcav get consistently beaten by equal numbers of javelin cavalry. I think it would be appropriate to reduce javelin cavalry damage by 2 from 18 to 16.

I should say that this is on top of them being both the main reason for cav being OP this alpha: they buff up a standard cavalry composition and eventually players just forget about melee cav and make almost pure javelin cav. I am seeing worrying gameplay where they are used simply as superior versions of skirmishers: for their extra damage and not any of the mobility benefits that they offer. It seems all players and civs that have them will eventually want to transition into javelin cavalry if they want to win.

Even in the best case micro scenario for spearcav player, the spearcav will barely win. Since the spearcavalry has a counter against cavalry, less base damage, and less durability than swordcav, it should at least be able to convincingly beat skirmcav.

Changing damage from 18 to 16 will nerf cavalry in general since skrimcav are at least one component of cavalry 95% of the time (most civs have it and everyone knows they are OP). I like fixing multiple balance issues with a good fix, and I think reducing damage from 18 to 16 accomplishes that.

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the amount matters.

try 10 vs 10 and 50 vs 50, even 70 vs 70.

the difference is that most of the spearcav have to path and find a target during which time 100 percent of the skirm cav can attack.

Thanks for the suggestion. I did some test in the A26 scenario editor.

In 10v10, the spear cav win convincingly. Over 20 the result vary a lot and position is hugely important. Both sides can win with a third of their army remaining. In practical situation there likely will be some spear cav with pathing problems in a if numbers reach over 50.

Not only the spear vs jav cav matchup is curious. Javelin infantry have only 1/2 times the HP of their cavalry javelineer (ignoring the cav health upgrade), but don't suffer from the 2x multiplier. In a 60v60 battle between spear cav and javelin infantry, the spear cavalry have the edge, but sometimes the infantry javelineers win.

If we fight with infantry spearman vs. javelin infantry in numbers above 60, the javelineers convincingly win.

 

Some would argue that this is desirable balance where players need a combination of both melee and ranged units.

To me, this seems more like an ranged vs. melee problem. For me the game would be better balanced if the player with more ranged units would need more micro to get favourable engagements.

 

I also think that in the early to mid game, javelin cavalry is fairly well balanced. So I would like any changes that affect that. Maybe removing the +10% health upgrade could be something. Rather than removing the health upgrade (which is unique as it is an upgrade in a different building than the blacksmith), I would prefer if the final armor upgrades in the blacksmith did not affect cavalry but they get the +10% health upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

To me, this seems more like an ranged vs. melee problem. For me the game would be better balanced if the player with more ranged units would need more micro to get favourable engagements.

Yes, it often seems that the melee player needs to do more micro, at least for cavalry. I wonder how a general buff for melee units would do here, or a general buff for spear units, if swords are fine at the moment. Perhaps some attack repeat time changes could be used here too (slower time for ranged maybe).

An additional culprit is the 3 hack armor ranged cavalry get, although this would buff swordcav vs ranged cav. Maybe another spearcav buff is appropriate? infantry spears do 3 hack 2.5 pierce damage while spear cavalry do 4 hack 3 pierce (only .5 more for pierce). I think for balance as well as consistency across melee cav, spearcav could do 3.5 pierce damage which would be important for attacking ranged cavalry, which have 3 hack 1 pierce armor.

 

4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I also think that in the early to mid game, javelin cavalry is fairly well balanced.

It is acceptably balanced, perhaps because engagements are smaller usually. Although a small nerf won't change this IMHO.

 

4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I also think that in the early to mid game, javelin cavalry is fairly well balanced. So I would like any changes that affect that. Maybe removing the +10% health upgrade could be something. Rather than removing the health upgrade (which is unique as it is an upgrade in a different building than the blacksmith), I would prefer if the final armor upgrades in the blacksmith did not affect cavalry but they get the +10% health upgrade.

I like the both the stable upgrades. They distinguish early CC cavalry rushes vs more all in tactics, where you often want the upgrades. You could also reduce the upfront HP by ~ 10 HP, so that the upgrade restores it to the current un-upgraded HP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 03/08/2022 at 6:24 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Cavalry = 2 pop

yes, most easy way to implement . 

 

I created this thread because i think that in any aspect of a strategic game, an advantage should carry somehow a downside  .. so the team/player losing could recover and not play a game that is rigged to be gg within the next 10 mins .  An example in 0ad would be territory expansion with CC ,  thats as many as CC to defend and with bad coordinations you can lose them  1 by 1 as your army is scattered everywhere on the map ..

All elements of a strategic game that favor braindead spam should be weighted or removed. A good thing in 0ad is that stone-paper-scissor aspect with that hack,pierce,crush  ... i couldn't imagine 0ad without that .

 

So about cav,  one can say that Cav are not able to farm, mine or cut wood ..  ok, but as i said, once you got like 120 cavs, u really dont need lot of citizens to replace casualties   since you use allies as meat shield ..  it goes to an extend that looting makes cav   eco-self-sufficient  to keep the spamming ..  With op units like Firecav, the damage taken are so slow u can offer the luxury to micro damaged firecav and heal them back in a captured temple. Just unstoppable     ..  so really there's no downside  - or too few - in having  a bunch of cavs in the middle of a TG.

Cavalery = 2 pop is good idea

 

 

Edited by JC (naval supremacist)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good analysis @JC (naval supremacist).

In my opinion, cavalry had an advantage in speed and melee cavalry can perform more deadly charges. We can make ranged cavalry expert hit and run units that will not be able to last in direct combat, so they should have identical health and armour to infantry (50hp), and possibly the same attack values (or slightly higher damage at much lower accuracy).

Melee cavalry can have a little bit more health, armour and attack than their infantry counterparts as the initial momentum makes a difference. So I am suggesting a health value of 120 and +1.5 pierce more than their infantry counterparts?

But to account for this nerf, we can further buff their speed to accentuate the  advantages of cavalry: 18m/s walk speed and 20m/s run speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...