Nerf Caballeros against heavy infantry

[howlingwolfpaw]

adding a 4th multiplier is adding 33% attack which is pretty considerable and also multiplies other upgrades as well

The added range is just an element that does not make much sense. why for lancers and not other units? this type of change will make it that is not bunched together lancers will fight muskets in melee but muskets will stay in ranged where they will do little damage.

If iron flails and meteor hammers did not have this feature, they would be much worse off, but conversely because of it are much better than they look like on paper with their stats.

[chronique]

Hp is more valuable for cav than attack. 6 hackapel rect so ez 5 mam in head to head.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Its essentially a solution to the same equation. Try the example of a regular hussar, give one extra 25%HP, another 25% extra attack. They will still both kill each other in the same time amount of hits. Hackapells and mams are just too different to compare.

[chronique]

Na hackapell and mam are the best exemple of why cav need hp and not attack. Cav tank and then fight, where range unit do the opposite. The only situation where increasing attack is better for cav is when you hit a break point (like caba vs strelet).

[Garja]

It's completely situational. Dps is often more important than HP. 6 hackas are much more scarier if popped at the right moment than mams. Mams need a large infantry mass behind them to be any scary, otherwise lot of meelee units take care of them cost efficiently, plus mams are not scarier than 5 huss at raiding. Hackas do much more damage to vills and are a bigger threat. Also they can powerplay other low hp unit without giving them a chance to retreat. Mams usually take too long to kill units on the spot before reinforcement force them back.
And in even in battles dps is often better. Lot of times you just want to unbalance the opponent army composition by killing as many skirms as possible. Mams dont quite do that, they tank shots but if the opponent is microing its skirms on the right units it still has time to take a good trade.

Anyway, caballeros is a good card but not OP. The range thing is funky and totally unecessary.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Its been a while since I have compared stats, but a hackapell is 3 pop unit, and a mam 4... that accounts for some of the power discrepancy between the 2 units. Its like comparing a musket to a highlander.

[chronique]

Na hp is more valuable for cav than attack, no doupt about that lol. Also iam talking about 6 hackapel which win againt 5 mame but still, 5 mame was nerf and not 6 hackapel lol.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Its the same thing really but there is a balance. 6 hackapell is 18 pop, 5 mameluke is 20. So there you show that a higher attack wins over bigger HP. (not sure how micro is also at play here)

[chronique]

4 mame is still more usfull.

[howlingwolfpaw]

you are counterdicting yourself, by saying 4 mame is more useful than 6 hackapells, yet you complain that 6 hackapells were not nerfed and still stronger than 5 mamelukes?

[chronique]

I guess its because iam so bad in english lol. I said hp is more valuable than attack for cav, and i take in exemple the fact than 6 hackapel win against 5 mame but never be considered op for there cost, where mame are. And with mame nerf, 6 hackapel vs 4 mame is a joke in head to head but 4 mame is still more usfull than hackapel because more tanky.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I guess the use is about how you play with them. Others have given examples of how Hackapells thrive in certain situations. Sure mamelukes are a good unit and do tank a bit, but you better have some high DPS units in the mix with them or the overall effect is not much greater. Similarly, using hackapells in a battle need some kind of diversion tanky unit to synergize with their high attack potential.

EDIT: about effectiveness, say you want to take out some cannon (generally using cav is only when you have to and you have no cannons) once you get something like a hackapell in position take them out almost instantly, stopping them from making any more shots. If a mameluke gets in position they will take so much longer to kill the cannons that they may get extra shots off causing a cascade of problems to the whole engagement.


In adjusting the same unit stats though a chance in HP or attack is essentially the same thing (on paper, actual unit micro can make a difference) For instance think of how the sepoy was handled. They went from 190 hp to 180, about 5% but that did make then 33% weaker to TC fire. but if they added a 5% to their base stats would be roughly equivalent to their power vs other units.

[Makrokosmos12]

With Caballeros Spanish lancers, 2 or 3 lancers can attack the same target at a time, and will start one-shotting heavy infantry before they have a chance to swing back. This is particularly bad in fights with melee infantry such as halberdiers and pikemen. This is breaking a core mechanic of the game, and essentially invalidates a unit type in the spain matchup.

I propose to add a nerf to the card, which nerfs their damage to heavy infrantry to half, because they still have a 4x multiplier vs infantry they will still be doing 2x damage to heavy infantry


Current EP Caballeros
"Caballeros" shipment changed to +1 hand attack infantry multiplier and +1 hand attack range (from +1 hand attack infantry multiplier) for Lancers

Suggested Change:
"Caballeros" shipment changed to +1 hand attack infantry multiplier and .5 multiplier vs heavy infantry and +1 hand attack range (from +1 hand attack infantry multiplier) for Lancers

They will still be doing very good damage vs all types of units because they are able to hit units from behind each other, effectively increasing their damage.
This change puts them more inline with naginata riders and also keeps them balanced, like how dutch has a .75 infantry multiplier when they get the speed upgrade.

For evidence of this happening, here is a recent game i played, I admit i am not the best player, but the fact remains that entire mass of pikemen vs mass of lancers, only two lancers were lost and my entire mass was killed: skip to 145:10
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/694667640?t=01h45m10s

Pikes are not good at fighting by design due to their low stats. Also lancers are designed to beat heavy infatry, even if they are anti-kav like pikes.
Just make muskets...they are 10x better anyway or goon or whatever. The problem issue isnt Caballeros ... rather how shit pikes are in this game.
Also you cant expect to win with trash pikes vs double carded lancers. I dont know what you expect.

[Makrokosmos12]

That's standardizing, don't like it.

what about balancing?

Hahaha,sry that I laugh here but .... nobody here cares, if some units are almost useless compared to their alternatives.
Nobody cares if grenaders are still not a viable option (to train at foundry).
Nobody cares if priest are useless junk.
Nobody cares if Pikes and halbs suck ass compared to goon/musk.

Wich is sad.

So learn a lesson boy and make Ryuter the next time you play dutch or maybye halb (only when you got your infantry upgrades in)
With Ryuters you could have killed much more lancers and the retreated and maybye still had a chance.

[Makrokosmos12]

adding a 4th multiplier is adding 33% attack which is pretty considerable and also multiplies other upgrades as well

The added range is just an element that does not make much sense. why for lancers and not other units? this type of change will make it that is not bunched together lancers will fight muskets in melee but muskets will stay in ranged where they will do little damage.

If iron flails and meteor hammers did not have this feature, they would be much worse off, but conversely because of it are much better than they look like on paper with their stats.

Extra range coz it fits the theme of the unit (Lancer). Also just 1 Range isnt that big tbh. 5 fucking range of meteor hammers is when it gets obnoxios.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I think meteor hammers have 2? but still yeah... hitting enemies behind walls and behind other cav is absurd.

I am for the change as long as any unit with a lance, pike, halberd, spear etc... get the same treatment. Lancers have enough going for them they did not need it. Its a good way to make melee a little more viable.

[Makrokosmos12]

Lancers are cav that act like artillery, so you counter with heavy cav or ranged cav

I disagree with this. I don't believe this is how they were designed or intended to be used.

cmon. Well in this fight ur melee inf was all clumped up in the tress. That was ur fault, also he had 1 falc and skirms in the back inflicting lots of damage on your pike/halb. Just analyze the game instead of spewing nonsens like this around.

Lmao ofc they are inteded to be used like that vs infand artillary. Just like Naginata they have the same weaknesses and strenghts.

[Makrokosmos12]

I think meteor hammers have 2? but still yeah... hitting enemies behind walls and behind other cav is absurd.

I am for the change as long as any unit with a lance, pike, halberd, spear etc... get the same treatment. Lancers have enough going for them they did not need it. Its a good way to make melee a little more viable.

Yeah i really would like to see that change aswell. Give these worse melee units 1 Range so that they are a more useful compared to musk. It makes sense,but nobody does it,even though it has been suggested before. Fucking stupid.

[Garja]

4 mame is still more usfull.

practically maybe yes, it's better to have some heavy tanking units (cav or not) at a key point in the game. In a vacuum tho it's completely situational. And to be fair, as I described already, high dps units are often more decisive.

[Garja]

I guess its because iam so bad in english lol. I said hp is more valuable than attack for cav, and i take in exemple the fact than 6 hackapel win against 5 mame but never be considered op for there cost, where mame are. And with mame nerf, 6 hackapel vs 4 mame is a joke in head to head but 4 mame is still more usfull than hackapel because more tanky.

Mams are not op for their cost, that's not why the card was nerfed. It just appears that the mameluke is an industrial age unit and it has 40% rr. This combined with the otto FF (jan mass) was always a bit too hard to deal with for most civs. Port mam card nerf is essentially only because it's the same card and occasionally has the same problem.
German hackapell card is actually quite good, just Germans already have ulhans which are the same exact thing, plus can't fill the deck with too many merc cards and the other two have priority for obvious reasons.
Also otto have both 4mams and 6 stadiots card and the latter can be actually better than mams later on. Mams are just very good at the exact point in time when they are usually sent (11-12 min) because the opponent will struggle to deal with both them and 30 jan mass behind.

[chronique]

Hackapel is only better for raidind. Just imagine german with 6 mame for 1kg, best card ever, better than 13 jaeger. Also, on RE if you give 5 mame to any civ, 100% sure this civ would be happy.

Also 30% hp naginata is insane (better than cc because +15%hp is better than +15% atta). There are zero arg where attack is more valuable than hp for cav (unless raiding)

[Garja]

It would be 5mams vs 8 hackas and my point still stands. Again mams are an industrial age unit, so no shit every civ would benefit from it. And also mams have 40% rr which is the real broken thing, not the HPs.
Anyway there are plenty of arguments for dps being better. For example, axe riders have a better hp to atk ratio than huss and actually RE ulhan is also a better unit than hussar. Cossack is also better than hussar and is more damage oriented than HP oriented. Meteor hammers also have more interesting stats than huss tho the extra range is what make it so appealing. Having cav that actually does damage instead of just snaring and tanking shots is often better, especially when your army pop is 50/50 inf/cav and your infantry doesn't have amazing dps (e.g. euro skirms).
Another clear example is spahis being much more scarier than mams for aztecs colonial. In fact mams are only scary because of the rr% which means goons take forever to kill them and any infantry that shoots at them is wasting volleys. But even just shitty pikes do great vs mams while they're in trouble vs spahis.
As for naginata it's just huss with 30%rr and a bonus vs infantry for a very little less hp and base damage. So it's just straight up better regardlless of the HP card which btw it's OP in combination with the pavillion tech which scales on it.

[Kaiserklein]

Current caballeros is arguably not better than cav combat. So why should it be nerfed?

Lancers are bad vs everything but infantry. And caballeros lancers beat carded heavy infantry, but not by much. It's fine

[chronique]

It would be 5mams vs 8 hackas and my point still stands. Again mams are an industrial age unit, so no shit every civ would benefit from it. And also mams have 40% rr which is the real broken thing, not the HPs.

Na its 6 mam vs 8 hackapel (400 * 6 = 300 * 8)

Anyway there are plenty of arguments for dps being better. For example, axe riders have a better hp to atk ratio than huss and actually RE ulhan is also a better unit than hussar. Cossack is also better than hussar and is more damage oriented than HP oriented. Meteor hammers also have more interesting stats than huss tho the extra range is what make it so appealing.

Where are your args here? AR is not better than hussard, cosaque is better because better stat (for their cost) also 30% rr, meteor hammers are range unit (and tankyness is still more valuable for them).

Having cav that actually does damage instead of just snaring and tanking shots is often better, especially when your army pop is 50/50 inf/cav and your infantry doesn't have amazing dps (e.g. euro skirms).

Its wrong, your cav snare / tank and your inf deal damages, also skrim/cav is not a great combo, but in mousket / cav (which is more standar) mousket deal damages. Its quite simple, all of your range unit attack, so their attack is very valuable, when you have some cav, all of them can't attack and the attack stat of an unit who can't attack is irrelevant, but they tank unitl the death to protect your mousket army.

Another clear example is spahis being much more scarier than mams for aztecs colonial. In fact mams are only scary because of the rr% which means goons take forever to kill them and any infantry that shoots at them is wasting volleys. But even just shitty pikes do great vs mams while they're in trouble vs spahis.

Your exemple argues in my way. Mame are not insane in term of stat for their cost, but because they are so tanky, in the real life, they are better. This is the same exemple than mame vs hackapel. Hackapel win in head to head (like, pik win againt mame) but this situation never happens, the reality is, low tanky cav gona be kite and die before dealing any damage.

As for naginata it's just huss with 30%rr and a bonus vs infantry for a very little less hp and base damage. So it's just straight up better regardlless of the HP card which btw it's OP in combination with the pavillion tech which scales on it.

So why hp cav card is more used than attack cav card? 30% hp is definitly better than 15/15%.

[Garja]

It would be 5mams vs 8 hackas and my point still stands. Again mams are an industrial age unit, so no shit every civ would benefit from it. And also mams have 40% rr which is the real broken thing, not the HPs.

Na its 6 mam vs 8 hackapel (400 * 6 = 300 * 8)
If that was the case then the base one would be 5 mams (5*400) but it is 4. They basically should cost more but instead of nerfing them that way we chose to reduce the amount.

Anyway there are plenty of arguments for dps being better. For example, axe riders have a better hp to atk ratio than huss and actually RE ulhan is also a better unit than hussar. Cossack is also better than hussar and is more damage oriented than HP oriented. Meteor hammers also have more interesting stats than huss tho the extra range is what make it so appealing.

Where are your args here? AR is not better than hussard, cosaque is better because better stat (for their cost) also 30% rr, meteor hammers are range unit (and tankyness is still more valuable for them).
Axe riders are marginally better than huss, despite costing slightly less in terms of vill seconds. It's just a more favorable atk to hp ratio. If they also had 30% rr they would be the perfect cav unit.
Cossacks are better because of 30% rr, because of more efficient cost AND because it's a more favorable hp to atk ratio than huss. Meteor hammers are basically ulhans with a bit of range and multiplier vs artillery so they're definetely not a tanky unit.

Having cav that actually does damage instead of just snaring and tanking shots is often better, especially when your army pop is 50/50 inf/cav and your infantry doesn't have amazing dps (e.g. euro skirms).

Its wrong, your cav snare / tank and your inf deal damages, also skrim/cav is not a great combo, but in mousket / cav (which is more standar) mousket deal damages. Its quite simple, all of your range unit attack, so their attack is very valuable, when you have some cav, all of them can't attack and the attack stat of an unit who can't attack is irrelevant, but they tank unitl the death to protect your mousket army.
It's absolutely correct. Cav snares AND it does damage. Actually, often it doesn't even snare, because it's skirms vs skirms and then cav just flanks and clean up. Skirm cav is a pretty common combo and a good one actually. Skirm cav > skirm goon just for example. Also it's not true that all of the range unit attack. Back lines often don't reach the target and front lines often overkill on the same unit. Hand damage is very useful in that sense to avoid overkill. I agree that not all cav attack, but that's also largely depending on player micro. Most of decent player still don't individually micro cav units to reduce pathing issues.

Another clear example is spahis being much more scarier than mams for aztecs colonial. In fact mams are only scary because of the rr% which means goons take forever to kill them and any infantry that shoots at them is wasting volleys. But even just shitty pikes do great vs mams while they're in trouble vs spahis.

Your exemple argues in my way. Mame are not insane in term of stat for their cost, but because they are so tanky, in the real life, they are better. This is the same exemple than mame vs hackapel. Hackapel win in head to head (like, pik win againt mame) but this situation never happens, the reality is, low tanky cav gona be kite and die before dealing any damage.
No my example goes to show that having dps is often more useful than having high HP. And btw mams are OP because of the 40% rr, how many times should I repeat it. They could have half HP and still be very strong just cause range damage doesn't do shit to them.
Also it happens all the time that spahis, hackapells, stradiots or even ulhans powerplay other units in direct fights. And it happens more frequently if the player is aware of the chance of abusing their high attack to do exactly that.

As for naginata it's just huss with 30%rr and a bonus vs infantry for a very little less hp and base damage. So it's just straight up better regardless of the HP card which btw it's OP in combination with the pavillion tech which scales on it.

So why hp cav card is more used than attack cav card? 30% hp is definitly better than 15/15%.
Because naginata HP card is straight up better than the extra multiplier one (which is in fact quite useless)?
And no, 30% HP is not necessarily better than the classic combat card. It's probably more abusable because of the pavillion tech scaling on it, which means that nagis get almost a 200hp boost, just an insane power spike. Also Japan has high dps infantry and nagis have 30% rr so the tank/snaring thing very much works for the civ.