Ranged Anti Cav?

[sudmakmak]

Keshik? LOL

[Kaiserklein]

Make the units that your civilization can make. It does not matter what is better if you can't make these units.

Of course it does. For example if you're germany, you dont want to train a lot of wws vs a goon civ, because goon>ww. But against china or colonial civs for example, you can mass wws.
And you can also go heavier on cav if your anti cav sucks, like ger or china, so knowing how good your anti cav is matters

[Jeedos]

I think dopples hand attack should be changed to ranged attack. And give them 22 range.

ESOC needs to hire this guy pronto.

[Jeedos]

Goons are better for kiting, CA are better for bodyblocking and standing battles.

And for the faction specific ones:

Assuming Bow Riders, RR, Ruyters, Zamburaks and Musket Riders fall into the former category with stuff like Manchu and War Wagons into the latter.

[Jeedos]

Keshik? LOL

Biggest joke of a unit since Barbary Corsairs.

[Darwin_]

Cav archers are still relatively cost/pop inefficient. If they were 1 pop or cost a little less they would be usable.

??????

Arent they still barely better than goons in a static fight, and much worse in a mobile fight?

[sdsanft]

Cav archers are still relatively cost/pop inefficient. If they were 1 pop or cost a little less they would be usable.

??????

Arent they still barely better than goons in a static fight, and much worse in a mobile fight?

In a static fight they are much better and definitely more pop/cost efficient, but they basically can't be in on mobile fights at all. They can kite as well as a lb basically.

[Darwin_]

Show hidden quotes

Cav archers are still relatively cost/pop inefficient. If they were 1 pop or cost a little less they would be usable.

??????

Arent they still barely better than goons in a static fight, and much worse in a mobile fight?

In a static fight they are much better and definitely more pop/cost efficient, but they basically can't be in on mobile fights at all. They can kite as well as a lb basically.

Ah. What is their Rof? lol I guess I was totally wrong xD.

[tedere12]

yeah and they lose super hard to kiting goons (even BRs do which are a lot better than CAs)
Their ROF is 1,5. So you must have plenty of them to do your thing, as it takes time for their attack to pay off and few of them will get picked off very easily.

[Papist]

I feel like it depends how you define efficiency. Do you mean performance against cavalry, or overall performance?

[paddy_jai]

keshik is far more good than u could imagin.
their anti cav damage is much higher considering they 1 pop and 1.5 ROF and low cost plus a very large mutiplier against cav

[paddy_jai]

keshiks do 62 damage to cav with a ROF 1.5, 1 pop
Goons do 150 damage with ROF 3, 2 pop

[Kaiserklein]

Keshiks have 30% range resist, which is really gold for a cav archer. Thats why they beat CA and goons. They just suck cause you cant mass them

[Papist]

Would it be a good idea to give China a ckn/keshik army in age 2 to replace the pike/keshik one? It would certainly make keshiks more viable, and it would give China age 2 options.

[EmoCelestia]

Would it be a good idea to give China a ckn/keshik army in age 2 to replace the pike/keshik one? It would certainly make keshiks more viable, and it would give China age 2 options.

That would be greaaaaaaaaaaaaat

[zoom]

I don't think that's a good idea, since you don't have Forbidden Army to perform anti-cavalry duty. I think the best option to that end is changing Mongolian Army to Keshis–Steppe and buffing both units slightly.

[Kaiserklein]

Would it be a good idea to give China a ckn/keshik army in age 2 to replace the pike/keshik one? It would certainly make keshiks more viable, and it would give China age 2 options.

Would probs make china colonial OP tbh, because then you have a very good anti-HI (chukonus, they have a skirm dps) and a goon-type unit as well, and actually a good one, even though I know people won't believe it

[a passing slimey]

I don't think changing the composition of the banner army would be nice. Steppe keshik sure do look a lot attractive, and you wouldn't really need to buff the units if you were to change the standard army to that since they would actually become really nice to mass. The problem is that it really changes how the civ is played by a lot. People were already frowning at the unction change; if people started making keshiks in team games just like that, i believe many people would go nuts.

Well, it would be fun tho.

Imo you should reduce the cost of the ming banner to 315 food 120 wood (10 food reduction to the keshik cost) and make their training time the same to the old han army. This would make it better and much easier to get a mass big enough that it would feel like they are actually doing something.(345 food kind of a pain to amass before being even able to train them. Its almost as if you were gathering for 10 strelets but get shit instead)

Of course they are much better than people give them credit for, but they are still too weak for the hassle you have when paying for a batch which 2 of the 5 units are kinda useless. They die really fast, but you can't remass them like you can with zambs, the unit that is the most similar to keshiks. Even with 30 rr, they still drop like flies. For an unit that is so hard to remass thats really bad. It's possible to kite with keshiks, but you can't really make use of you 1.5 rof while kiting, which leads to your unit having really low damage for doing dragoon stuff. In battles you stand and shoot they aren't that much great either. 48 damage in two shots (without the card upgrade) isn't too shabby for a 1 pop dragoon, but it is hard to see the effects since you will really just have a few of them and that you will be using pike anyway. One of the main reasons for people to favor dragoons instead of hand inf or musketeers is because the cav can just pull back while the heavy inf has to take all the shots and die in a worse trade than the cav. Each pike deal about double of what a keshik does of damage, so since you will have to make pikes anyway it almost feels like just having extra pikes would do the same effect to having a few keshik shooting at the back. The pikes gotta pull back once the cav pulls back, and the keshik would just get all shot down if they keep the pursue. Because of all that i dont think the cost reduction would suddenly make keshiks the best cav archer or something.

Cost reductions for units that train in batches matters a lot in the remassing process, so even if just 30 extra food in your bank each time you make a ming batch feels little, it would really help a lot. The amount of value you get from each batch is about the same as the old han, so i see no reason for it to take extra seconds to finish training.

At any rate, 30 food reduction is definitely not op for cost effectiveness at least.

Fak somehow ive written a wall.

[fei123456]

Standard army 2 steppe 3 ckn to 3 steppe 2 ckn would be good.

[zoom]

Would it be a good idea to give China a ckn/keshik army in age 2 to replace the pike/keshik one? It would certainly make keshiks more viable, and it would give China age 2 options.

Would probs make china colonial OP tbh, because then you have a very good anti-HI (chukonus, they have a skirm dps) and a goon-type unit as well, and actually a good one, even though I know people won't believe it

That's interesting. I think it would turn Chinese Colonial Age from unviable into unplayable, because then you have a very bad counter to heavy cavalry.

[zoom]

Cavalry Archer and Keshik (nominal cost) attack and hitpoints per Villager-second:

CA: ~1.21hp, ~0.59dps
K: ~0.8hp, ~0.58dps

In order words, the imaginary Keshik has about 65% the hitpoints and 98.5% the damage output of a Cavalry Archer. A trained Keshik actually has less than that, as it partly costs wood, which gathers more slowly. Similarly due to the banner-army mechanic, the Keshik also cannot be massed normally, and to top things off, its scaling is abysmal. On the plus side, though, it is importantly available in the Colonial Age, being fast and having ranged resistance, as well.

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah I already told you this doesn't work, because of overkill. It's completely wrong. Keshiks beat CA, if you fight with 3 keshiks vs 2 CA, or w/e amount you need to have the same investment on both sides, keshiks win, thanks to the 30% rr.

[pecelot]

Cav archers are still relatively cost/pop inefficient. If they were 1 pop or cost a little less they would be usable.

??????

haha, I wanted to reply exactly the same

[momuuu]

Cavalry Archer and Keshik (nominal cost) attack and hitpoints per Villager-second:

CA: ~1.21hp, ~0.59dps
K: ~0.8hp, ~0.58dps

In order words, the imaginary Keshik has about 65% the hitpoints and 98.5% the damage output of a Cavalry Archer. A trained Keshik actually has less than that, as it partly costs wood, which gathers more slowly. Similarly due to the banner-army mechanic, the Keshik also cannot be massed normally, and to top things off, its scaling is abysmal. On the plus side, though, it is importantly available in the Colonial Age, being fast and having ranged resistance, as well.

Thanks zoo for actually bringing some numbers to the table. Keshiks indeed seem shit, but maybe its worth looking at ranged and melee hp too?

[zoom]

Sure. Dividing the above hitpoints values by 7/10, I get:

CA ~1.73Mhp
Keshik: ~1.148Rhp

I doubt the Keshik should be buffed, anyway. In my dreams, the Mongolian Army is moved to the Colonial Age and War Academy, respectively, with a pair of the buffed Steppe Rider replacing the Hand Mortar. Also, Reforms applies to these two units, as well.