Cassador does not shadowtech
Cassador does not shadowtech
Lets consider age 3 resources with all market upgrades.
1.092 food per second ... rounded down to 1 bc of walking and shooting time
0.78 coin per second
0.8 wood per second
So, I always thought that I was getting a slightly cheaper skirmisher (only 9VS less) but with much more attack and I only needed to be aware of heavy cav bc of their low HP. But it turns out that Cassador is a fortress unit, so their base stats dont shadowtech these are shocking news for me.
So the Cassador has 0.5 more speed and the same attack of a skirm in fortress, and slightly better attack in age4 an age5 but their HP and ranged HP are ugly low compared to the Skirmisher.
In the table I compared Cass vs Skirm. I added the "colonial Cassador" that I thought I was getting every game. And I added the Xbow bc of age4 politician in DE. The columns are HP, ranged HP, attack, attack vs Light Cav, attack vs Heavy Inf, and attack vs Heavy Inf x3. I am not counting cards for now.
Now, rather than say: buff Cassador!!! I am asking you to explain me why is the Cassador used in many compositions of Ports players. Why is this unit viable? is it because is the only option for Ports?
1.092 food per second ... rounded down to 1 bc of walking and shooting time
0.78 coin per second
0.8 wood per second
So, I always thought that I was getting a slightly cheaper skirmisher (only 9VS less) but with much more attack and I only needed to be aware of heavy cav bc of their low HP. But it turns out that Cassador is a fortress unit, so their base stats dont shadowtech these are shocking news for me.
So the Cassador has 0.5 more speed and the same attack of a skirm in fortress, and slightly better attack in age4 an age5 but their HP and ranged HP are ugly low compared to the Skirmisher.
In the table I compared Cass vs Skirm. I added the "colonial Cassador" that I thought I was getting every game. And I added the Xbow bc of age4 politician in DE. The columns are HP, ranged HP, attack, attack vs Light Cav, attack vs Heavy Inf, and attack vs Heavy Inf x3. I am not counting cards for now.
Now, rather than say: buff Cassador!!! I am asking you to explain me why is the Cassador used in many compositions of Ports players. Why is this unit viable? is it because is the only option for Ports?
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
They cost more because they have more speed than normal skirmishers. Therefore, if you divide stats by cost, you get worse values than for normal skirmishers (because the speed is not included in that calculation). -> Cassador is viable as normal skirmishers are.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Jun 22, 2015
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
you can make war wagons in age 2(with team early goons) and they will be vet tech too
Got Badger Milk?
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
I always explained why nerfing goons but buffing cassadors are not the ideal way to balance ports but the lobbying against turtle and some kind playstyles are strong here, so that your words won't mean a lot.
Originally ports were played with heavily goon mass + a few amount of cassa + mams, but since EP has changed goon RR, it effected ports quite badly since ports were arguably the civ which relied on strong goon + 5mams which got nerfed because of otto, but it makes zero sense to nerf mams for ports while it was only big issue for otto anyway, cassadors are kinda %50 weaker against artillery and hand infrantry (hp matters a lot), also goons can't take cost effective fights anymore, you have to make cassadors as ports eventhough you don't want to make them firstly, it's like nerfing cavs from sioux and force the civ to make wakina rifle heavily composition, that's exactly what was done to ports with the goon nerf. It is quite unreasonable to nerf main unit of a civ and I have explained it many times but unfortunately I lost my hope in it. Because It's nearly impossible to have reasonable balance discussions.
Originally ports were played with heavily goon mass + a few amount of cassa + mams, but since EP has changed goon RR, it effected ports quite badly since ports were arguably the civ which relied on strong goon + 5mams which got nerfed because of otto, but it makes zero sense to nerf mams for ports while it was only big issue for otto anyway, cassadors are kinda %50 weaker against artillery and hand infrantry (hp matters a lot), also goons can't take cost effective fights anymore, you have to make cassadors as ports eventhough you don't want to make them firstly, it's like nerfing cavs from sioux and force the civ to make wakina rifle heavily composition, that's exactly what was done to ports with the goon nerf. It is quite unreasonable to nerf main unit of a civ and I have explained it many times but unfortunately I lost my hope in it. Because It's nearly impossible to have reasonable balance discussions.
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
Your table seems to suggest Cassadors would have more stats if they scaled off colonial, which is the opposite of how scaling works
Units that scale off fortress stats get overpowered upgrade scaling (such as Cassadors).
It looks like you just moved fortress upgraded veteran Cassadors into the colonial age, which is incorrect if were attempting to compare scaling (your stats in fortress should match in both versions).
Units that scale off fortress stats get overpowered upgrade scaling (such as Cassadors).
It looks like you just moved fortress upgraded veteran Cassadors into the colonial age, which is incorrect if were attempting to compare scaling (your stats in fortress should match in both versions).
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
they actually cost less, but again only speed is their prop?richard wrote:They cost more because they have more speed than normal skirmishers. Therefore, if you divide stats by cost, you get worse values than for normal skirmishers (because the speed is not included in that calculation). -> Cassador is viable as normal skirmishers are.
yeah, that is exactly what I did to prove my point bc I thought that base stats were from colonial and they got additional 20% HP and attack in fortress. I never bothered to check their stats in game. I checked their stats online, that's why I thought Skirms and Cass scaled from colonial and the difference was not the worse.EAGLEMUT wrote:Your table seems to suggest Cassadors would have more stats if they scaled off colonial, which is the opposite of how scaling works
Units that scale off fortress stats get overpowered upgrade scaling (such as Cassadors).
It looks like you just moved fortress upgraded veteran Cassadors into the colonial age, which is incorrect if were attempting to compare scaling (your stats in fortress should match in both versions).
But yesterday with the new big UI I saw the stats in game and found out that they started with 110HP in fortress rather than 110+22HP when skimishers have 120+24HP.
So in fortress they have the same attack as a regular Skirmisher, they cost slightly less, but they have inferior HP and ranged HP, and their only good stat is their speed
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
That sounds like you have to use their speed if you want to use their potential.VictorXV wrote: So in fortress they have the same attack as a regular Skirmisher, they cost slightly less, but they have inferior HP and ranged HP, and their only good stat is their speed
Re: Cassador does not shadowtech
their potential being the same as a regular skirm but with lot less HPrichard wrote:That sounds like you have to use their speed if you want to use their potential.VictorXV wrote: So in fortress they have the same attack as a regular Skirmisher, they cost slightly less, but they have inferior HP and ranged HP, and their only good stat is their speed
and it does not help much that as Ports you are under pressure in your base, so kitting is kinda not viable?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests