late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
I've seen conflicting opinions about what units to use in very-late game situations as China, like deep age 4 and age 5, in team games, FFA, or treaty. Chu Ko Nu seem to be the favored range infantry unit, and I've seen players use steppe raiders as a sort of opri type unit, but also just as a general cav unit because they want to make Chu ko nu and not qiang pike.
But I took some screenshots of fully upgraded age 5 Chinese units, with brit consulate + all available upgrade cards, which are as follows:
age 2: standard army hitpoints, mongolian scourge
age 3: territorial army combat, repelling volley, double faced armor
age 4: manchu combat, old dynasty reforms, western reforms
I believe that's all the unit upgrades there are, but let me know if I'm wrong.
First the infantry: It seems like these stats would suggest that arquebusiers are still the better ranged infantry, with higher base attack, longer range, more ranged resist (20% vs 10%) and the same multipliers, but less hit points than Chu Ko Nu. Qiang pikes are clearly better for siege and countering cav than changdao, but changdao have a stronger base attack vs everything, and 10% more melee resist. For the cav, it seems like Iron Flails are the tanks, but do similar damage to units and have a similar multiplier vs light infantry that Steppe Riders do. Meteor hammer have the highest base damage and no multiplier, but have a longer range attack, and their HP falls between an iron flail and a steppe rider. Both meteor hammers and iron flails have 40% ranged resist, which is insane, whereas Steppes only have 30%. Steppe riders have the best siege and of course their villager bonus, but in straight combat they just seem pretty terrible still-- frail, with only 427 hitpoints and 10% less ranged resist than iron flails or meteor hammers, and the same attack as the tankier Iron Flail, plus a negative multiplier vs ....something, I cant tell what the icon is. Artillery? Heavy cav? So these results seem to suggest that territorial army + forbidden army is just way better than standard army + old han army, even with full upgrades and the old dynasty reforms. So why do I see top level treaty and team players going for old han / standard army so much? Am I missing something? Is it cost efficiency?
bonus keshik:
But I took some screenshots of fully upgraded age 5 Chinese units, with brit consulate + all available upgrade cards, which are as follows:
age 2: standard army hitpoints, mongolian scourge
age 3: territorial army combat, repelling volley, double faced armor
age 4: manchu combat, old dynasty reforms, western reforms
I believe that's all the unit upgrades there are, but let me know if I'm wrong.
First the infantry: It seems like these stats would suggest that arquebusiers are still the better ranged infantry, with higher base attack, longer range, more ranged resist (20% vs 10%) and the same multipliers, but less hit points than Chu Ko Nu. Qiang pikes are clearly better for siege and countering cav than changdao, but changdao have a stronger base attack vs everything, and 10% more melee resist. For the cav, it seems like Iron Flails are the tanks, but do similar damage to units and have a similar multiplier vs light infantry that Steppe Riders do. Meteor hammer have the highest base damage and no multiplier, but have a longer range attack, and their HP falls between an iron flail and a steppe rider. Both meteor hammers and iron flails have 40% ranged resist, which is insane, whereas Steppes only have 30%. Steppe riders have the best siege and of course their villager bonus, but in straight combat they just seem pretty terrible still-- frail, with only 427 hitpoints and 10% less ranged resist than iron flails or meteor hammers, and the same attack as the tankier Iron Flail, plus a negative multiplier vs ....something, I cant tell what the icon is. Artillery? Heavy cav? So these results seem to suggest that territorial army + forbidden army is just way better than standard army + old han army, even with full upgrades and the old dynasty reforms. So why do I see top level treaty and team players going for old han / standard army so much? Am I missing something? Is it cost efficiency?
bonus keshik:
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
with the buffs to dynasty reforms and in general stepp rider buffs theyre just more practical than weaker skirm sword
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
but these screenshots show the units with all upgrades and cards factored in, including dynasty reforms, and arquebusiers are clearly stronger than CKN, meteor hammers/flails are clearly stronger than steppes except for siege, and changdao is pretty much even with pikes, they just do slightly different things.Hazza54321 wrote:with the buffs to dynasty reforms and in general stepp rider buffs theyre just more practical than weaker skirm sword
the biggest factor should be how much better arquebusiers are than CKN, when both are fully upgraded. More range, more damage, more ranged resist, just slightly fewer hitpoints. and arquebusiers only need 2 cards to achieve that (territorial army combat and repelling volley), while CKN need three (repelling volley, standard army hp, and old dynasty reforms)
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
I don't know about team games, but the lower train time on Old Han/Standard Army is definitely a consideration for treaty.
Plus, range is just less relevant in treaty as you don't tend to kite as much.
Also, CKN actually do more damage than Arqs. They are firing 3 projectiles, so they are actually doing 39 damage compared to 33 from an Arqubusier. This damage can ofc be cancelled if the opposing player is kiting a lot (because they don't fire all 3 projectiles when something leaves its range), but you just don't do that in treaty enough.
Plus, range is just less relevant in treaty as you don't tend to kite as much.
Also, CKN actually do more damage than Arqs. They are firing 3 projectiles, so they are actually doing 39 damage compared to 33 from an Arqubusier. This damage can ofc be cancelled if the opposing player is kiting a lot (because they don't fire all 3 projectiles when something leaves its range), but you just don't do that in treaty enough.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Jan 20, 2021
- ESO: india_bot1999
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
how are arquebusier clearly stronger, when they have less dps, and less hp. Sure they have more range, but seems less relevant in big treaty fights where you don't kite 24/7 and when chukunu have an extra .5 speed.
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
Plus their hand attack is better! What an important stat to overlook
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8049
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
idk cho ku nu just feel way more cost effective and its a huge deal in treaty if you make bow pike > skirm sword
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
I do want to add for the cav comparison that Steppe rider and Keshiks cost one pop, so an equal pop comparison of Forbidden Army vs Mongolian Army actually favours Mongolian army in HP and even range HP iirc and attack, except for when fighting artillery due to the meteor hammer's x2 multi and dealing melee damage.
as for the infantry, The only thing I can add is that Changdaos are pretty bad in the lategame, melee infantry are bad in general but in particular Changdaos cause you need them to deal heavy damage against incoming cavalry which they are bad at. they have the same HP as pikes in the end and melee resist is not important when you are being shot at
I like to play standard army + mongolian army for the main bulk and then ming army in cav heavy situations
as for the infantry, The only thing I can add is that Changdaos are pretty bad in the lategame, melee infantry are bad in general but in particular Changdaos cause you need them to deal heavy damage against incoming cavalry which they are bad at. they have the same HP as pikes in the end and melee resist is not important when you are being shot at
I like to play standard army + mongolian army for the main bulk and then ming army in cav heavy situations
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
ah I missed this, yes they do more damage. But at the cost of less range and 10% less ranged resist. But I can see how damage > everything else for a skirm unit. although range has to be a pretty big factor, even if you're not kitingMitoe wrote:I don't know about team games, but the lower train time on Old Han/Standard Army is definitely a consideration for treaty.
Plus, range is just less relevant in treaty as you don't tend to kite as much.
Also, CKN actually do more damage than Arqs. They are firing 3 projectiles, so they are actually doing 39 damage compared to 33 from an Arqubusier. This damage can ofc be cancelled if the opposing player is kiting a lot (because they don't fire all 3 projectiles when something leaves its range), but you just don't do that in treaty enough.
now what about the cav? are steppe/keshik armies really better than forbidden armies in ultra late game? I don't see how they could be
- AndiAOE
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Nov 5, 2020
- ESO: mk8by8bcity
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
Well you need your melee cav mostly for tanking, and there step riders are way better than the alternatives (Pop adjusted they have more HP). So step riders is the go to unit. CKN doing more damage then arquebusiers also makes them the better alternative. And then you do have the option to go for Keshiks with the castle (Keshik/steppe rider), which is also a strong unit. This means for me china's best lategame composition is CKN/Steppe rider/ Keshik + Canons (consulate/ Flying crows). Sure there are situations where you might want iron flails/metero hammers, but overall i would avoid doing arquebusiers/changadagos (Pikes are also bad)Squamiger wrote:ah I missed this, yes they do more damage. But at the cost of less range and 10% less ranged resist. But I can see how damage > everything else for a skirm unit. although range has to be a pretty big factor, even if you're not kitingMitoe wrote:I don't know about team games, but the lower train time on Old Han/Standard Army is definitely a consideration for treaty.
Plus, range is just less relevant in treaty as you don't tend to kite as much.
Also, CKN actually do more damage than Arqs. They are firing 3 projectiles, so they are actually doing 39 damage compared to 33 from an Arqubusier. This damage can ofc be cancelled if the opposing player is kiting a lot (because they don't fire all 3 projectiles when something leaves its range), but you just don't do that in treaty enough.
now what about the cav? are steppe/keshik armies really better than forbidden armies in ultra late game? I don't see how they could be
Link to my Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUYSgP ... H3TZI2GmLw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUYSgP ... H3TZI2GmLw
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Oct 16, 2019
- ESO: LeHussardsurletoit
Re: late game china army composition: territorial/forbidden army vs standard/old han
You can not just compare stats, what does count is pop and cost effectivness - with miscellaneous like training time as tie-breakers.
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests