China builds

[iNcog]

that's right, stick to him

show zoi what it means to do mathematics

[momuuu]

How much of an effect does 1 aoe have? Like, when iron flails are attacking a generally packed group of skirms (or any units for that matter), how much damage are they expected to do?

between 33 and 66 against skirms. between 15 and 30 for HI, 22 and 44 against cav

I see, but how big is 1 aoe? Is it likely to hit 3 skirms?

Also gj on the stats! It seems we forgot to take into account that they do get an age 3 upgrade on top of their base stats.. I was already surprised why the hussar seemed so much stronger statwise (like, far superior) while it feels the other way around. With these correct stats I think its a pretty clear win for China, though maybe you could say their cav is slightly weaker in the cav vs cav fights. But then again, you have the fact that meteor hammers do ranged damage to make up for that, so I not even sure about that.

[zoom]

Please refer to: http://eso-community.net/post/15592

It has one shitty splash radius and is worse in absolutely literally every other regard (even damage against ranged infantry and hitpoints per cost against ranged).

you forget the chinese ninja in cover mode

as well as all the free, cheap units that china has

in terms of stats they arent great (not even sure if i agree with that), but they have so much excellent synergy with the rest of chinas army that its fine

they also have a ranged resist upgrade

I didnt forget shit' I omitted the Monk from that particular post because it has no relevance whatsoever to the subject at hand, and I omitted shipment upgrades from my comparison of unit statistics, including 30% Euro Trash Cavalry Combat which is so much better than 15% and 35% more ranged resistance its not even funny, despite being separated into three shipments.

The monks cover mode is great Ill agree, but its also a compromise just like Wonders and Export spending.

[zoom]

If that is true they arent as relevant, I agree entirely.

Thats a fair point, except literally the only thing Chinese cavalry is better against is artillery. Hussars on the other hand are anything but "good-at-nothing".

I think you have not watched enough china discple ff back then.
Also huss are bad, the only civ that is gonna use huss in age3 is brits and just cause they have no alternative and often they age with 15+ spare huss to upgrade.
Dutch very likely prefer to make cannons. Same thing for ports.
All other civs have unique cav, aka better cav.

Possibly not. On the other hand, I dont see how Disciple Fast-Fortress strategies from extremely outdated patches ?? even by AoE3 standards ?? are relevant to what were discussing here which is the performance of Chinese Fortress Age cavalry.

How are Hussars bad? They are so cost-efficient calling them "bad" is a joke. Again: They are literally better against everything else in the entire game than artillery. That without contest makes them better rather than worse overall.

British, Dutch, Ottomans, Portuguese all make very good use of Hussars.

Finally, a point that perfectly encapsules the entire misconception of TWC and TAD civilizations: "Unique" or "Different" does not equal "better".

[iNcog]

specialized units are better with good micro though,

upgrades boost their specialization too

nagi & axe riders are the best hussar type cav in the game, arguably

[deleted_user0]

between 33 and 66 against skirms. between 15 and 30 for HI, 22 and 44 against cav

I see, but how big is 1 aoe? Is it likely to hit 3 skirms?

Also gj on the stats! It seems we forgot to take into account that they do get an age 3 upgrade on top of their base stats.. I was already surprised why the hussar seemed so much stronger statwise (like, far superior) while it feels the other way around. With these correct stats I think its a pretty clear win for China, though maybe you could say their cav is slightly weaker in the cav vs cav fights. But then again, you have the fact that meteor hammers do ranged damage to make up for that, so I not even sure about that.

Zoi compared colo vs colo instead of fort vs fort, doesnt change anything tho.

Btw zoi chinese cav also has 1 or 2 more ups i think but ye the cav combat cards are pretty good too and dont rqnk much if any worse than the chinese rr + hp

In the end theyre both kinda mediocre lol. Dont understand what all the fuss is about.

[deleted_user0]

specialized units are better with good micro though,

upgrades boost their specialization too

nagi & axe riders are the best hussar type cav in the game, arguably

Id say nagi is more a lancer type. And cossack is probably the best per cost. Maybe axe is a bit better. Nagi are also good but more specialised as well.

[zoom]

[quote source="/post/15669/thread" timestamp="1434397148" author="@durokan"]Here are some screenshots and some numbers

Age 3 Huss, no upgrades/cards
[img]http://i.imgur.com/IGDx5gb.png" style="max-width:100%'" alt=""]

Age 3 Flail
[img style="max-width:100%'" src="http://i.imgur.com/tOgoWpb.png"]

Age 3 Hammer
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AO9AvLd.png" alt="[/img]

Something important I would like to note, no chinese player (ff) would ever be caught dead in the fortress age without their British consulate. In addition to giving a strong shipment, (9 redcoats) it gives land units 10% increased health. It makes the units slightly stronger and slightly more cost efficient. This is something that may have been overlooked, and is why I will be comparing fortress age units with the british consulate up for china. Keeping the same format as your post, here is my age 3 analysis. I will be using .84f/s .6g/s .5w/s as my gather rates. The villager second (vs) are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Age 3 Flail, Brit Consulate - 240f - 286vs
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6TvKcmp.png" alt="[/img]
ranged health 492.7
att vs ri - 33, vs hi - 15
HP/VS - 1.325
RHP/VS - 1.722
ATT/VS - 0.077 (varies from 0.052 to 0.231)
Speed - 6.5

Flails do splash damage against dense formations, potentially doubling their damage output for a total ranging from 15 to 66. 22 damage is misleading as it can vary heavily based on combat conditions. Given their specialized condition, they will do incredibly large damage for their cost, but given the wrong ones, they will do very low damage.

Age 3 Hammer, Brit Consulate - 175g - 292vs
[img]http://i.imgur.com/74Cd5FC.png" alt="[/img]
ranged health 366.6
HP/VS 0.966
RHP/VS 1.253
ATT/VS .116 (.232 vs art)
Speed - 6.5

These guys tear apart artillery, and can do it without getting body-blocked by HI on top of them.

Age 3 Huss - 120f 80g, 276vs
[img]http://i.imgur.com/IGDx5gb.png" style="max-width:100%'" alt=""]
ranged health 460.8
HP/VS - 1.391
RHP/VS - 1.770
ATT/VS - .130
Speed - 6.75

Hussars are very strong general purpose cavalry. They are similar to muskets as they are a strong generally effective unit. They lack specialization, which is fine for euro civs.

All 3 cavalry have very similar costs, though the edge goes to hussars. Hussars are also tankier per cost. China's cav is similar to a strelet/musk composition, my reasoning being the weak cav can draw overkills, while the tanky cav can sponge lots of damage keeping the low hp units alive, adding to the cost efficiency. China's cav is also less susceptible to ranged volleys while running back and forth like cav normally does in a fight due to their increased ranged resist. Take note of the Flail's ranged HP. China's cavalry is used differently than hussars. They have a bulky front line with a weak back line health wise. The back line is protected by the shorter ranged cavalry up front. They can fight multiple cavalry deep due to their range. Hussars on the other hand can only fight one deep and are less tanky than china's front line. Both compositions in general scenarios will do similar damage but china can do it from a range, slow more units due to the splash 1 attack, and under ideal conditions will do much more damage. In addition, China's cav will do more damage than hussars because of the fact that hussars have problems with pathing. The ranged advantage is also huge because they get to strike first in a fight.

It is also important to note that china's cav shreds artillery. This is incredibly important because china has infantry vulnerable to cannonfire. China does not have the same composition as most other civs, except for Germany or Russia. (skirmlike inf + melee cav) Their skirms will kill the HI. This makes the -% damage against heavy infantry negligible. Hussars are less specialized, and as such are good alone, but this game does not revolve around single unit compositions in supremacy. A specialized 3 unit composition, arq flail hammer, is more effective against many threats. This discussion is more about Huss vs China's Cav so I will not talk about the big picture anymore, but one should keep it in mind.

Summary:
China has more specialized units, and in their unit composition their cavalry is extremely effective. Giving hammers and flails instead of hussars to the British or French would hurt their compositions because they are not as specialized as China's. They are incredibly good for China's comp though. Hussars are better as a general unit, but China's cav are not general units, they have a specific purpose.[/quote]British Allies is not overlooked' it is irrelevant to the comparison. I should add I consider British Allies passive bonus as well as Intervention shipment overpowered, although this has nothing to do with the argument.

Beyond that, your cost calculations are flawed and misrepresentative of actual cost which is more adequately described by the Forbidden Banner Army's cost (as in an Iron Flail does not cost only food and a Meteor Hammer vice versa).

Take note of the Iron Flail's ranged hitpoints indeed' it is namely lower than the Hussar's per cost *ROFLGOAT* Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers have a specific purpose indeed, and they don't fulfill it better than Hussars except for in the case of artillery.

Your ranged hitpoints calculations are just mathematically incorrect (I haven't corrected anything else nor do I intend to and I in fact did assume the rest is correct). Also, please provide references or at the very least basis for your splash damage claims.

Your Strelet??Musketeer composition comparison is cute but suffers from one inherent, humongous flaw' those are ranged units.

Furthermore (how many times will I need to point this out, I wonder), "the tanky cav" is less "tanky" than Hussars ?? neither Iron Flails nor Meteor Hammers are less susceptible to ranged volleys.

Yes ?? the Chinese Fortress Age cavalry is used differently. That's all fine and dandy. It doesn't change the fact that it's worse even in those specialized ways (again the only exception being countering artillery). The Chinese composition differs in two significant ways: 1. The Chinese lack a viable (in terms of production and effectiveness) light cavalry unit. 2. The Chinese are forced to produce half of one unit and half of another, leaving the civilization with an assorted mess of units, some of which you want and some of which you don't want. There is nothing about this that even implies the notion that the Chinese are better off with shittier, more specialized cavalry. Both compositions in general scenarios (any scenario not involving massive amounts of unprotected artillery) will not do similar damage at all' the Hussars outright destroy the Chinese cavalry in this regard. Under "ideal conditions" entailing nothing but artillery and ranged infantry, then yes Chinese Fortress Age cavalry is slightly better overall. The issue (and the point I've been making all along) has nothing to do with specialization: Hussars are just better (far better in the case of Iron Flails) in every single way (except against poorly guarded artillery in the case of Meteor Hammers). Giving British Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers would fuck them up miserably because Iron Flails are atrocious whoreshit terribad ?? not because they're "specialized".

Summary:
Using a comparison with mathematically incorrect calculations, you repeat false conclusions several times in various shapes, and make a few things up in the process to romanticize your post. 4/10 for good effort. I did enjoy the aesthetically pleasing screenshots, after all.

Most memorable quote: "Their [Chinese] skirms will kill the HI. This makes the -% damage against heavy infantry negligible."

1. Skirmisher type units tend to "kill the heavy infantry" regardless of whether it's Chinese or not. 2. What negative damage against heavy infantry?

[zoom]

specialized units are better with good micro though,

upgrades boost their specialization too

nagi &' axe riders are the best hussar type cav in the game, arguably

In theory that is true. In practice good enough micro for that to be true does not take place with regards to the units under discussion. Also, even in theory it would only ever be true if Chinese Fortress Age cavalry (Iron Flails in particular) weren''t so fucking terrible (cost-ineffective).

[Durokan]

How much of an effect does 1 aoe have? Like, when iron flails are attacking a generally packed group of skirms (or any units for that matter), how much damage are they expected to do?

[img]http://i.imgur.com/SvfICHa.png[/img]
3 Swipes. idk what scenario editor uses as default, it was probably age 2 skirms vs age 2 cav. This damage doesn''t seem like a lot but the extra damage adds up. From this picture it seemed to increase damage by about 40%. These guys were in standard spread. If they were in the wide spread, they would not take splash damage. A good comparison to the amount of splash is like trying to fire a culverin into a group of infantry.

[deleted_user0]

Chinese cav, atleast 1 of them only has 6.5 speed as well right?

[zoom]

I see, but how big is 1 aoe? Is it likely to hit 3 skirms?

Also gj on the stats! It seems we forgot to take into account that they do get an age 3 upgrade on top of their base stats.. I was already surprised why the hussar seemed so much stronger statwise (like, far superior) while it feels the other way around. With these correct stats I think its a pretty clear win for China, though maybe you could say their cav is slightly weaker in the cav vs cav fights. But then again, you have the fact that meteor hammers do ranged damage to make up for that, so I not even sure about that.

Zoi compared colo vs colo instead of fort vs fort, doesnt change anything tho.

Btw zoi chinese cav also has 1 or 2 more ups i think but ye the cav combat cards are pretty good too and dont rqnk much if any worse than the chinese rr + hp

In the end theyre both kinda mediocre lol. Dont understand what all the fuss is about.

Precisely! In fact, I even went out of my way to do correct calculations. That always helps...

Cavalry Combat alone is at least as good as Double-Faced Armor, before taking into account that it also affects light cavalry (making the card even better, despite not for melee cavalry).

Hussars arent mediocre at all' even Meteor Hammers arent! Iron Flails are the real deal though...

[zoom]

specialized units are better with good micro though,

upgrades boost their specialization too

nagi &' axe riders are the best hussar type cav in the game, arguably

Id say nagi is more a lancer type. And cossack is probably the best per cost. Maybe axe is a bit better. Nagi are also good but more specialised as well.

Naginata Rider is far closer to a Hussar than a Lancer. Cossack is not at all the best "Hussar type cavalry in the game", although it is the most population efficient one. I have no idea what youre basing these statements on.

[zoom]

Chinese cav, atleast 1 of them only has 6.5 speed as well right?

As is perfectly evident from my initial summary of the three units'' statistics, both Iron Flails and Meteor Hammers do. Obvious bias is obvious though...

[zoom]

How much of an effect does 1 aoe have? Like, when iron flails are attacking a generally packed group of skirms (or any units for that matter), how much damage are they expected to do?

[img]http://i.imgur.com/SvfICHa.png[/img]
3 Swipes. idk what scenario editor uses as default, it was probably age 2 skirms vs age 2 cav. This damage doesnt seem like a lot but the extra damage adds up. From this picture it seemed to increase damage by about 40%. These guys were in standard spread. If they were in the wide spread, they would not take splash damage. A good comparison to the amount of splash is like trying to fire a culverin into a group of infantry.

AFAIK, its probably Colonial Age Skirmishers vs Fortress Age Iron Flails. It does add up, but as Ive noted time and time again, it in no way comes anywhere near compensating for the pathetic cost-effectiveness of actual statistics.

[deleted_user0]

Id say nagi is more a lancer type. And cossack is probably the best per cost. Maybe axe is a bit better. Nagi are also good but more specialised as well.

Naginata Rider is far closer to a Hussar than a Lancer. Cossack is not at all the best "Hussar type cavalry in the game", although it is the most population efficient one. I have no idea what youre basing these statements on.

I specifically stated per cost. Nagi being closer to lancer or huss is kinda irrelevant but i can see where youre comoinv from.

If huss arent mediocre then i dunno what is because uhlans, cossack (per pop cost effectiveness) nagi (specialisation). Cuir lancer and axe riders are better.

Im not counting coyyo/spahi/mercs/nats here so the worse unita are arguably the chinese cav, including steppe and kanya, Putting huss in the middle of the spectre. As well as huss not being considerably worse or better than any pf them except steppes, mediocre seems an adequate dewcription

[Durokan]

Your method for calculating cost is actually inaccurate, mine is correct as per the game's numbers. The basis for the resources was from the following screenshots. The way Chinese units work at the war academy is they cost a single resource. The army costs are not some obscure number. For example, flails cost 240f, hammers cost 175g, arqs cost 85g. If we want to create an imperial army, we take the cost of 3 skirms and add it with the cost of 2 flails. This gives us our total of 480f and 255g. This is how banner armies work for China.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/VghwPZi.png[/img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/EZ2kLIj.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/K7XImyZ.png[/img]
Shall I post more screenshots or are these costs enough?
Brit allies are not irrelevant as anytime a flail is used by a half decent player or better they will be backed by a British consulate.

The basis for my splash damage claims is as follows:
Splash damage deals a portion of the original damage in a circle around the hit unit. It caps at 1x the inflicted damage. For example, if a flail hits a skirmisher it deals 33 damage to that skirmisher, and then potentially up to another 33 in a circle around the unit, totaling 66 at it's highest amount of damage. Against HI, they will deal 15 damage, possibly an additional 15 in an area around that.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/1pwUFgR.png[/img]
This screenshot is the aforementioned -% against HI

[momuuu]

The splash is slightly disappointing to me, but it's a factor. A 40% increase in damage is decent.

[Durokan]

The splash is slightly disappointing to me, but it''s a factor. A 40% increase in damage is decent.

two flails one shot a whole line of 1hp minutemen
or one flail can do it in two swipes, much more efficient than 1 swing per kill (saves hp and time)

[zoom]

Your method for calculating cost is actually inaccurate, mine is correct as per the game''s numbers. The basis for the resources was from the following screenshots. The way Chinese units work at the war academy is they cost a single resource. The army costs are not some obscure number. For example, flails cost 240f, hammers cost 175g, arqs cost 85g. If we want to create an imperial army, we take the cost of 3 skirms and add it with the cost of 2 flails. This gives us our total of 480f and 255g. This is how banner armies work for China.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/VghwPZi.png" style="max-width:100%'" alt=""]

[img style="max-width:100%'" alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/EZ2kLIj.png"]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/K7XImyZ.png" alt="[/img]
Shall I post more screenshots or are these costs enough?
Brit allies are not irrelevant as anytime a flail is used by a half decent player or better they will be backed by a British consulate.

The basis for my splash damage claims is as follows:
Splash damage deals a portion of the original damage in a circle around the hit unit. It caps at 1x the inflicted damage. For example, if a flail hits a skirmisher it deals 33 damage to that skirmisher, and then potentially up to another 33 in a circle around the unit, totaling 66 at it''s highest amount of damage. Against HI, they will deal 15 damage, possibly an additional 15 in an area around that.

[img style="max-width:100%'" src="http://i.imgur.com/1pwUFgR.png"]
This screenshot is the aforementioned -% against HI

Yes, please do post more screenshots!

Since you apparently still do not realize the truth of the matter, I will try making myself more specific and clear this time around. Here is how you calculate the effective "ranged" hitpoints of unit X:

*HP(X)/(1-*RR)

For example, in the case of the unit Hussar:

320/(1-0.2) = 400

Fortress Hussar, for instance, has 480 ranged hitpoints' not 460.8 as per your incorrect calculations.

*Legend: HP = hitpoints' RR = ranged resistance

The above is what I meant by that.

As for Banner Army Costs, I am fully aware of just how they work. While it is true that an Iron Flail may technically cost 240f, it will ?? without exception, I might add ?? be produced with a significant coin cost attached to it in terms of the other "half" of the Banner Army costing coin. This is inherent to the basic design of the very civilization. As such, for all intents and purposes, the listed in-game single-resource cost values of Chinese units are both misleading and irrelevant relating to comparisons such as this.

British Allies are not at all irrelevant to the balance of the civilization or common practice for the civilization, though they are a bonus completely separate and irrelevant to the individual units themselves. I am not even attempting to make comparisions between civilizations' merely between different units.

With these clarifications made, I am thankful for your explanation on splash damage. Tell me please, though: Does that imply that the magnitude of splash only affects the total damage cap by whole multipliers?

Finally, I should make another attempt to explain to you that Iron Flails do not have an (effective) negative multiplier against Heavy Infantry. In your given example, they would do 16.5 rather than 15 to heavy infantry.

[zoom]

Naginata Rider is far closer to a Hussar than a Lancer. Cossack is not at all the best "Hussar type cavalry in the game", although it is the most population efficient one. I have no idea what youre basing these statements on.

I specifically stated per cost. Nagi being closer to lancer or huss is kinda irrelevant but i can see where youre comoinv from.

If huss arent mediocre then i dunno what is because uhlans, cossack (per pop cost effectiveness) nagi (specialisation). Cuir lancer and axe riders are better.

Im not counting coyyo/spahi/mercs/nats here so the worse unita are arguably the chinese cav, including steppe and kanya, Putting huss in the middle of the spectre. As well as huss not being considerably worse or better than any pf them except steppes, mediocre seems an adequate dewcription

I am fully aware of that you specifically stated per cost, as was I at the time of writing my reply as quoted by you above: The Cossack is not at all the best "Hussar type cavalry in the game" per cost.

I would argue Uhlans, Cossacks and Naginata Riders are all very similar to Hussars in cost-effectiveness. The others I agree with, although both Cuirassiers and Lancers are poor comparisons since they are quite different indeed.

Do note by the way that I am presuming Fortress Age base stats for all purposes of this discussion.

[Garja]

Cossacks are one of the best cavarly in the game, because of pop and stats. Muche better than hussar for sure. Ulhans are also better than hussar per cost. Actually pretty much every cavarly in this game is better than hussar per cost.

[zoom]

I agree, most are. Hussars are only marginally worse than most though.

[Mimsy for President]

Besides steppe riders, I don't see worse than hussars (maybe kanya?)

[Jaeger]

Cossacks are one of the best cavarly in the game, because of pop and stats. Muche better than hussar for sure. Ulhans are also better than hussar per cost. Actually pretty much every cavarly in this game is better than hussar per cost.

Don''t you think vet huss is better than lancer? I mean, lancer can''t raid, lancer can''t catch raids, and the only major benefit lancers have is that they do ok vs heavy infantry unlike hussars, but a lot of civs go fortress vs spain and not many make heavy infantry in fortress. Also, sure they do more damage vs skirms but if youre able to engage with cav it means goons are dead so either way huss or lancer you will do insane damage with your army shooting in the back too if goons are dead.