i think mahouts the size of coyotes would be one of the best units in gamedeleted_user wrote:I do wonder how a cross-the-board reduction to hand calvary obstruction radius might improve play.
The thread about hand cavalry
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
That's probably because they're jammed in together with other units tanking the shots. This is why high dps are good btw, as long as they're not directly focus fired they're insane.dansil92 wrote:(Can we please nerf longbows at least to do 1.5vs erks, thats a brutal matchup)zoom wrote:No. It does 0.75 vs the "coyoteman" tag, which the Rattan Shield and Tiger Claw units infamously lack. Incidentally, this also means that ranged infantry does double damage to the Eagle Runner Knight, instead of one-and-a-half times damage, like it does to light cavalry. Notably, the Tiger Claw practically has the siege damage of a Musketeer.Garja wrote:I think RI does x0.75 bs tiger claws. Also they have x2 vs RI so they basically dps as much as hussars. 10 huss is usually good.
The double damage buff is great but what i find most curious is that tiger claws are only 150 hp yet they seem to last forever vs skirms where huss seem to melt without a distinct population advantage
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
Yeah I've expressed the idea for a one-off Smackdown patch reducing obstruction radii for all units as much as possible for just this reason, but seems like a lot of work.Jerimuno wrote:i think mahouts the size of coyotes would be one of the best units in gamedeleted_user wrote:I do wonder how a cross-the-board reduction to hand calvary obstruction radius might improve play.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
I dont think youre completely right. Yes you probably need more cav to do a proper dent into his infantry, but if you wait so long you run the risk of him mixing enough anticav and then your switch will be useless. Also you even said it in your post (make more cav or dont make cav at all) so you also partly agree with me that hand cav arent the best investment.
Im pretty sure if those 1200 res were into gurkhas id get a much better trade overall.
Im pretty sure if those 1200 res were into gurkhas id get a much better trade overall.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
Less theory crafting and balance discussion and more match-up blaming, pls.
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
This is why you want a tight build vs jap. 5 sepoy 600g trickle etc. Or 5 sepoy trickle 600g with a TP. I don't remember the exact way but I used to win pretty much every game as India vs that defense.Hazza54321 wrote:I dont think youre completely right. Yes you probably need more cav to do a proper dent into his infantry, but if you wait so long you run the risk of him mixing enough anticav and then your switch will be useless. Also you even said it in your post (make more cav or dont make cav at all) so you also partly agree with me that hand cav arent the best investment.
Im pretty sure if those 1200 res were into gurkhas id get a much better trade overall.
Anyway we all know yumi do fine vs cav (especially few sowars and 10% rr huss) but that doesn't mean cav is too weak. If anything that simply means that among TAD civs the infantry/cav balance is a bit skewed towards infantry, which making for longer games is actually good. Even asian cav becomes very strong later in the game and in general in TAD cav is very dominant. For example in no other RTS cav raids are so effective like in AOE3, nor are cav switches.
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
It's supposed to be a brutal match-up, and Aztecs is supposed to be able to counter the Longbowman, which is why the Coyote Runner and Macehualtin Temple shipments were just buffed, in addition to the Eagle Runner Knight nerf being reverted (on top of which the civilization was buffed, in additional ways). One of the Longbowman's weaknesses is that it's relatively poor against heavy infantry, so civilizations without a Musketeer unit tend to struggle against it. Still, I would consider such a change if players agree that it's too brutal a match-up, and a significant balance issue, in its own right, that cannot be otherwise resolved—say, through buffs to Aztecs or general nerfs to British, both of whom continue to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.dansil92 wrote:(Can we please nerf longbows at least to do 1.5vs erks, thats a brutal matchup)zoom wrote:No. It does 0.75 vs the "coyoteman" tag, which the Rattan Shield and Tiger Claw units infamously lack. Incidentally, this also means that ranged infantry does double damage to the Eagle Runner Knight, instead of one-and-a-half times damage, like it does to light cavalry. Notably, the Tiger Claw practically has the siege damage of a Musketeer.Garja wrote:I think RI does x0.75 bs tiger claws. Also they have x2 vs RI so they basically dps as much as hussars. 10 huss is usually good.
The double damage buff is great but what i find most curious is that tiger claws are only 150 hp yet they seem to last forever vs skirms where huss seem to melt without a distinct population advantage
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
i dont really have problems with the MU in general, just thought switching it up from my usual builds would make it more interesting.Garja wrote:This is why you want a tight build vs jap. 5 sepoy 600g trickle etc. Or 5 sepoy trickle 600g with a TP. I don't remember the exact way but I used to win pretty much every game as India vs that defense.Hazza54321 wrote:I dont think youre completely right. Yes you probably need more cav to do a proper dent into his infantry, but if you wait so long you run the risk of him mixing enough anticav and then your switch will be useless. Also you even said it in your post (make more cav or dont make cav at all) so you also partly agree with me that hand cav arent the best investment.
Im pretty sure if those 1200 res were into gurkhas id get a much better trade overall.
Anyway we all know yumi do fine vs cav (especially few sowars and 10% rr huss) but that doesn't mean cav is too weak. If anything that simply means that among TAD civs the infantry/cav balance is a bit skewed towards infantry, which making for longer games is actually good. Even asian cav becomes very strong later in the game and in general in TAD cav is very dominant. For example in no other RTS cav raids are so effective like in AOE3, nor are cav switches.
- Makrokosmos12
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Aug 17, 2016
- ESO: Templer12
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
@Hazza54321Hazza54321 wrote:I dont think youre completely right. Yes you probably need more cav to do a proper dent into his infantry, but if you wait so long you run the risk of him mixing enough anticav and then your switch will be useless. Also you even said it in your post (make more cav or dont make cav at all) so you also partly agree with me that hand cav arent the best investment.
Im pretty sure if those 1200 res were into gurkhas id get a much better trade overall.
The thing about this whole conversation is that anticav like goon/musk has 3.0 multipliers vs cav. Its a very high multiplier. Skirms for example only have a 2x multiplier vs musks. Thats why you see skirms struggeling vs sepoy or ashi because these have way more HP than euro musks do.
Also your cav is a melee unit, which often first has to tank a volley of bullets before engaging the enemy (or two if your opponent microes well). This scales the more units are on the field. A big mass of skirms or yumi will kill more of your cav before you can engage. The behind the light infantry waits the enemys heavy infantry and dragoons which will also fire a volley. THEN your (decimated) cav is in combat. Nice and if youre unlucky and your opponent has heavy inf then you have to pull some units back while his stuff still fires away at your cav.
If light inf kites and you z move your cav at the wrong moment your cav also stumbles into each other. Also melee units have the hardest time in lag and sometimes dont do anything at all coz they bug out.
Melee units (includes cav) kinda suck in this game because they have a many hardcounters and they only counter light inf and artillery and pretty much always take damage before they can inflict damage back. Extra range resist would help eliviate this problem.
Like H2O said this game is about ranged infantry.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
I mean let's say he had an equivalent mass of xbows and you had an equivalent mass of huss, you'd clean up np. It's really about yumis being too strong and sowars being too weakHazza54321 wrote:So what youre saying is i need double the resources invested in my army to beat his despite me making the better and counter composition
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
The reason i specifially bring it up is that longbows have insane dps and low multipliers. no other unit takes double damage from Longbows, whereas at least skirms were designed to do double/triple damage to units without breaking balance.zoom wrote:It's supposed to be a brutal match-up, and Aztecs is supposed to be able to counter the Longbowman, which is why the Coyote Runner and Macehualtin Temple shipments were just buffed, in addition to the Eagle Runner Knight nerf being reverted (on top of which the civilization was buffed, in additional ways). One of the Longbowman's weaknesses is that it's relatively poor against heavy infantry, so civilizations without a Musketeer unit tend to struggle against it. Still, I would consider such a change if players agree that it's too brutal a match-up, and a significant balance issue, in its own right, that cannot be otherwise resolved—say, through buffs to Aztecs or general nerfs to British, both of whom continue to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.dansil92 wrote:(Can we please nerf longbows at least to do 1.5vs erks, thats a brutal matchup)Show hidden quotes
The double damage buff is great but what i find most curious is that tiger claws are only 150 hp yet they seem to last forever vs skirms where huss seem to melt without a distinct population advantage
Back to cav- perhaps lower obstruction radius should be considered? Seems interesting to consider
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
perhaps sowars should also regenerate hp?Kaiserklein wrote:I mean let's say he had an equivalent mass of xbows and you had an equivalent mass of huss, you'd clean up np. It's really about yumis being too strong and sowars being too weak
this is a very drastic change and is more along the lines of DE rather than EPdansil92 wrote:Back to cav- perhaps lower obstruction radius should be considered? Seems interesting to consider
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
Why
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
- howlingwolfpaw
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3476
- Joined: Oct 4, 2015
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
I saw that the lancer can now get 2 range with card. How has that changed the unit dynamic? is that something cav need? like 1 range to help them get that attack in?
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
to make them less shitKaiserklein wrote:Why
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
But having them regenerate hp is super random, I mean just boost their hp a bit if anything.
Anyway sowars don't need a buff, it's one of the few weak units india has lol
Anyway sowars don't need a buff, it's one of the few weak units india has lol
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
-
- Advanced Player
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Oct 20, 2017
- ESO: theonlybaus
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
imo cav r fine and ur all noobs. that is all.
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
Probably swings the game balance too much but back when CIR accidentally got an extra multiplier against goons, we saw a lot more hand cav compositions used. Instead of an extra 1x multiplier, maybe adding another .5x onto CIR would help up hand cav viability. Could even give goons back their .3 range resist despite that it has probably been rather good for balance.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
I am noob but I really agree with Hazza here.
One suggestion that I haven't seen mentioned: What about nerfing goon speed, perhaps to just .5 more speed than cav? It's so dumb when 20 cav have to run away from 5 goons; goons are the only unit (that I can think of) that can beat an infinite number of other units.
One suggestion that I haven't seen mentioned: What about nerfing goon speed, perhaps to just .5 more speed than cav? It's so dumb when 20 cav have to run away from 5 goons; goons are the only unit (that I can think of) that can beat an infinite number of other units.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
I think it just comes down to the nuances of the counter system in aoe3, namely
Cav < anticav < anti-anticav < cav
Eg cav loses to musk loses to skirm loses to cav
(There are many exceptions but this is the basics)
But pikes and musks are cheap and tear down cav at an incredible pace, dare i say halbs even more so. Goons melt cavalry with huge bonuses and stupidly high mobility.
Skirms melt through anticav like a hot knife through butter. Only the most exceptional of anticav can last very long against skirm masses (sepoy, eagle runners, jinettes) and even then, skirms really show their power vs any form of anticav.
But then we get to cav and they... arent so exceptional. Cavalry is (usually) expensive, clunky, and dont really beat down anti-anticav nearly as quickly as the above two classes beat their counters.
(Naginata are to me a very noteable exception as one of the most well rounded cavalry with extreme anti-skirm potential, high hp, excellent armour and very solid base damage)
Hussars are good vs anything they touch really, but en masse they bump and path funny and end up being too expensive to do much cost effectively. Tbh as of late ive been raiding with ranged infantry and i am convinced they make better raiders, you take way less tc fire and can focus vills down rather than chasing and bumping while maybe getting one or two vills down to half health. Sowars, coyotes, steppe, uhlan all have excellent attack per pop vs skirms but usually get blasted before making contact. While they dont usually all die at range, by the time they make contact a good % of them are gone or low hp and anticav has swooped in to melt them down. Tankier monsters like mamelukes or cuirs show how cav is supposed to work, but few civs have access to such powerful cavalry. Mahouts are blundering drunkards with horrid animation but definitely showcase the 'tanking' principle. Lancers are in principle incredible antiskirm but lose to like, everything else.
Artillery is the other anti-skirm unit type, but are so difficult to use effectively. They are expensive, immobile, vulnerable, and locked up behind an expensive building. When you consider how many skirms you can make yourself for the price of a foundry, a batch of falcs, only to have your whole investment gone by a single culv, its easy to see why in most matchups this is impractical. Even sometimes skirms can pick off artillery while its unpacking, and retreat with few to no losses. (yes im looking at you, yumi)
So thats my rant about the counter system aka why skirms are so dominant. Idk if anyone agrees with my observations but this is my experience
Cav < anticav < anti-anticav < cav
Eg cav loses to musk loses to skirm loses to cav
(There are many exceptions but this is the basics)
But pikes and musks are cheap and tear down cav at an incredible pace, dare i say halbs even more so. Goons melt cavalry with huge bonuses and stupidly high mobility.
Skirms melt through anticav like a hot knife through butter. Only the most exceptional of anticav can last very long against skirm masses (sepoy, eagle runners, jinettes) and even then, skirms really show their power vs any form of anticav.
But then we get to cav and they... arent so exceptional. Cavalry is (usually) expensive, clunky, and dont really beat down anti-anticav nearly as quickly as the above two classes beat their counters.
(Naginata are to me a very noteable exception as one of the most well rounded cavalry with extreme anti-skirm potential, high hp, excellent armour and very solid base damage)
Hussars are good vs anything they touch really, but en masse they bump and path funny and end up being too expensive to do much cost effectively. Tbh as of late ive been raiding with ranged infantry and i am convinced they make better raiders, you take way less tc fire and can focus vills down rather than chasing and bumping while maybe getting one or two vills down to half health. Sowars, coyotes, steppe, uhlan all have excellent attack per pop vs skirms but usually get blasted before making contact. While they dont usually all die at range, by the time they make contact a good % of them are gone or low hp and anticav has swooped in to melt them down. Tankier monsters like mamelukes or cuirs show how cav is supposed to work, but few civs have access to such powerful cavalry. Mahouts are blundering drunkards with horrid animation but definitely showcase the 'tanking' principle. Lancers are in principle incredible antiskirm but lose to like, everything else.
Artillery is the other anti-skirm unit type, but are so difficult to use effectively. They are expensive, immobile, vulnerable, and locked up behind an expensive building. When you consider how many skirms you can make yourself for the price of a foundry, a batch of falcs, only to have your whole investment gone by a single culv, its easy to see why in most matchups this is impractical. Even sometimes skirms can pick off artillery while its unpacking, and retreat with few to no losses. (yes im looking at you, yumi)
So thats my rant about the counter system aka why skirms are so dominant. Idk if anyone agrees with my observations but this is my experience
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: The thread about hand cavalry
Interesting post however
1) cav is often weaker in fights but it's faster so you don't have to take a bad fight and you can force a good fight so it makes sense.
2) Naginatas are weak against cav although they're super good against infantry.
3) Artillery is totally worth if you can force a fight. Also you can train culvs to counter culvs, that's not the reason why they're not trained. The real reason is that they're too immobile and your opponent can just raid/base trade or surround your army.
And no, skirms definitely can't pick off artillery units easily (though yumis can).
4) Skirms are dominant because of their mobility, they're not too strong as a unit (except fp or yumis).
1) cav is often weaker in fights but it's faster so you don't have to take a bad fight and you can force a good fight so it makes sense.
2) Naginatas are weak against cav although they're super good against infantry.
3) Artillery is totally worth if you can force a fight. Also you can train culvs to counter culvs, that's not the reason why they're not trained. The real reason is that they're too immobile and your opponent can just raid/base trade or surround your army.
And no, skirms definitely can't pick off artillery units easily (though yumis can).
4) Skirms are dominant because of their mobility, they're not too strong as a unit (except fp or yumis).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests