Jump to content


Cavalry > Infantry


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

KingJofreThe001 #21 Posted 21 September 2017 - 01:15 AM

    Sergeant

  • Praetorian
  • 468
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostAckturi, on 20 September 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

If they made matchmaking where you picked your commander before matching then picked units during loading and limit the number of players allowed with that unit. Maybe that'll give people reasons to play other units.

We could eventually reach a point where draft picking is a thing, but I would caution against arguing for a system that imposes artificial caps on army composition. There is a slippery slope from there on and it ends with each match feeling just as predictable as the cav heavy matches do today. Instead, we should wait and see how unit balancing turns out. In a balanced game environment, you won't need an artificial cap because  too much one unit type will automatically undermine the comp. 

View PostLevel9, on 20 September 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

I haven't played in the high tiers yet but around V and under Alexander with Wedge + Hammer doesn't do enough on a frontal assault to route, wipe, etc. This is why I said the issue is with generals. Their abilities are far too powerful when added up. If I can use a fully upgraded Alexander in the lower tiers and still get the benefit of their bonuses then I see an issue in regards to balance and it being unwelcoming to newer players. I haven't tested this myself so I am not sure. What I can say with absolute certainty is that I am unable to do a full route or decimate with Alexander under T5. As such a blind nerf to Calvary will also upset the balance in the lower tiers where Calvary is well balanced IMO. Dogs are the biggest issue at the moment since they break through phalanx and other defensive formations, can not only go toe to toe with infantry but can win. Combined with their range and speed they are over-tweaked. So far dogs are the only thing I feel is over powered atm in the lower tiers anyway. I haven't played anything above T5 so no idea how things go up there. 

You are certainly correct that commanders are overturned at higher levels. However, part of that issue is based in how commander abilities interact with preexising unit stats with higher tier units. The two combine to create imbalanced and frustrating gameplay, which is why lower tier games feel ok right now. To address game health, units have to be. Balanced relative to one another and commander abilities have to be retuned with a similar perspective. I would prefer one game dev cycle where cav feel more difficult than only dealing with abilities that leave a lot of their power intact. 


#WhereisBoudica 

#WarpuppyTime


SPEEROARENACANUS #22 Posted 21 September 2017 - 06:16 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 113
  • Member since:
    07-08-2017

View PostLevel9, on 20 September 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:

 So far dogs are the only thing I feel is over powered atm in the lower tiers anyway. I haven't played anything above T5 so no idea how things go up there. 

 

Here's another one. It's certainly 1/3 matches now for me at T6+:

 

 

Alexander D-D-D-D-D-ESTROYS at high tiers. Dogs are still broken due to poor mechanics and the ability to melt all infantry types with little to no need for strategic forethought, but Alexander is the ultimate nemesis for basically all unit types. No smart cav player at high tiers is charging their front into spears. They have no melee counter. Even "last second" charges seem to count as full blown, momentum gained charges. It's exacerbated at higher tiers due to the commander points you can dump into these abilities.

 

One Scipio cavalry unit can tank 3 Germanicus swords even when surrounded. Oath supersedes all other circumstances. Commander abilities and their poorly scaled power are what's making Cavalry so overpowered at high tiers. It may be a rout that certain unit types benefit less from abilities. IE, infantry benefit more from Oath than cavalry do.

 

Meanwhile, Germanicus infantry fully rout from barely getting right or left flanked. Hilarious.

 

Still no dev comments on it.


"War Dogago Delenda Est."

And, as always, death to War Dogs.

- Cato the Elder, 2017


Sulrn #23 Posted 22 September 2017 - 12:18 AM

    Private

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 6
  • Member since:
    09-09-2017

+1 for the issue not being Cav, but how weak (under-developed) Infantry/Infantry General game play is. Combined with Cav generals having better synergy than Infantry generals - Scipio and Alexander are just too easy to exploit.


 

Tier I-X there doesn't ever seem to be a sweet spot to play infantry (even as phalanx) - you either play cav or missile (with a throwaway infantry to anvil or block/scout for missiles + combined armed bonus).


 

Suggestions:


 

[General] Improve Infantry ability to brace from front/sides (I'd prefer the ability to adjust formations and see rank depth having varying defense bonuses to brace/morale - this by itself could easily fix several gameplay issues). Rework the infantry commanders to have more dynamic impact. As it stands Boudica is the only infantry commander I ever see myself using in the current meta.

[Roman]Light Infantry Pila damage needs to be increased and wind up reduced. Heavy Infantry need a better innate brace/morale bonus

[Barbarian] Units faction wide need increased defense/morale bonuses from being in wooded terrain.


Edited by Sulrn, 22 September 2017 - 12:20 AM.


R_Valle #24 Posted 22 September 2017 - 12:00 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 178
  • Member since:
    08-18-2017
Just played a match today, I was with 3 Roman Swords man standing still using Formed Combat (which has charge deflect) and still ONE cavalry of Alexander charged from the front and killed about 70% of one unit. I really think Shock cavalry needs some nerf. But could be that infantry needs some buff, don't know how, but they do.

Edited by R_Valle, 22 September 2017 - 12:01 PM.


D6Veteran #25 Posted 22 September 2017 - 04:45 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 39
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011

The problem is that in the real world, you'd A) have the entire army in a formation, including screens and reserves, that provided counters to cavalry flanking, and B) you simply didn't have these huge ratios of cavalry since they were so expensive to field.

 

The game does the opposite.  A) Instead of 1 general running the 30 units, you have 10 generals running 3 units each.  So you have these micro formations moving around the battlefield.  This removes the protections that a unified army formation gives infantry, and gives advantages to blobs of cavalry which can easily exploit all the gaps.  B) There's no cap on cavalry when forming teams so you get battles where >50% of the units are cav.  

 

If you've played Total War Shogun, Medieval or Rome, you will understand this.  Your army lived and died by the ability to keep a coherent army level formation and disposition, that countered the opposing armies formation and disposition.

 

I'm not sure how to fix this in Total War Arena.  You can maintain balance in Tanks and Warships by adding nerfs and buffs to units, but the main problem here I think is the need for army level formation.  Without that, you create an environment where cavalry thrives, which we are seeing.  

 

Having said all of that, you could abstract the solution by really buffing infantry vs cav, as a way of compensating for the lack of infantry working in large supporting formations.  As it is now, when I play infantry, I often feel like I'm a cohort off on a solo mission in enemy territory.  Which of course is going to be bad news against swarms of cavalry.



R_Valle #26 Posted 22 September 2017 - 08:08 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 178
  • Member since:
    08-18-2017
I'm almost 100% sure that Arena will never be able to simulate an army formation/composition while playing with 19 random players. Not because the players are dumb or anything like it, but because it's really hard to have all players on the same page, people have different desires and think ways of winning differently. But if one of them controlled all the 30 units, they would never be massacred by Cav like it is now. A simple line of spears and backup for the support unit in the middle and the cav has nowhere to hit.

But in the real game, that will never happen. In my view, one way to solve that issue, is that players should only be able to pick his units when the battle is about to begin, with that, players will have a better army composition because you will be able to see what your team is lacking and the game level will be much higher, while also leaving a cap for cavalry so that there is no spam.

The other one would be leaving the way it is and buffing infantry against cavalry, making unit mass more higher reducing the damage from charges (Specially Alexander's) while fixing the Morale System. Cavalry is specially good in routing units with just two blows, flanking should do A LOT less morale damage than what it is now.

D6Veteran #27 Posted 24 September 2017 - 02:47 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 39
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011

Well the past 10 games have been really fun.  Lots of infantry, working together.

 

And I had the honor of rolling up the flank!  900+ kills!

 

 

Posted Image


Edited by D6Veteran, 24 September 2017 - 02:55 AM.


Arclinon #28 Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:30 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 170
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016
I just would like to add that i am very happy to see people waking up to the facts that are mentioned here. We tried bringing them up repeatedly but it fell on deaf ears. I did not bring up cavalry as much simply because it was so obvious they are overpowered. This was over 2 months ago. It is just that cavalry is SO overpowered it is difficult to see the actual state of the balance.

Letum_Cruento #29 Posted 24 September 2017 - 09:21 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 206
  • Member since:
    07-06-2017

View PostFrith, on 19 September 2017 - 01:17 AM, said:

Cavalry has always been more costly than infantry to equip and maintain, so there wasn't an unlimited supply of them in historical armies.  Perhaps reduce the size of the cavalry units by 10% or so?  They'd still be strong and devastate an understrength infantry unit, but matched against a full strength infantry unit, they'd have less of an advantage.


 

And I think spears, especially when they form a line and brace (I can't remember the in-game term for this tactic) should get a significant bonus against cavalry attack, as a line of braced spears is a tactic that has been historically used against a cavalry charge.

 

Look at some of the spear infantry and pikes.  They get two sets of damage figures.   A a top equipped spear unit get +80% damage against cavalry completely independent of infantry. Is it that cavalry are overpowered or is it that players don't use enough spear/pike infantry.  Cause if you have seen a cavalry charge spears or pikes, they take heavy damage.  If the the latter is the case, then smarter players (or, as I suspect the best players will do, organized players in teams on voice comms) will make short work of cavalry. Its a lot like the argument against base caps.  In a timed game, base caps can be a pain.  But the games have to be timed or the queue times would put people off the game.  So, to avoid base caps, smart players will guard their base USUALLY with spear or pike infantry.

All of these posts I read come down to this: people want to come in, play and not be part of team.  By nature, a multi-player tactical games is going to be team-based.  If you can't cooperate, you WILL get beat.

SPEEROARENACANUS #30 Posted 24 September 2017 - 02:27 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 113
  • Member since:
    07-08-2017

I'm just going to keep posting these until some kind of change is made to make this stop. It's not matchmaking's fault either - there are just this many people who want to roll cav:

 


"War Dogago Delenda Est."

And, as always, death to War Dogs.

- Cato the Elder, 2017


Arclinon #31 Posted 24 September 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 170
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostBlydMyst, on 24 September 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

Look at some of the spear infantry and pikes.  They get two sets of damage figures.   A a top equipped spear unit get +80% damage against cavalry completely independent of infantry. Is it that cavalry are overpowered or is it that players don't use enough spear/pike infantry.  Cause if you have seen a cavalry charge spears or pikes, they take heavy damage.  If the the latter is the case, then smarter players (or, as I suspect the best players will do, organized players in teams on voice comms) will make short work of cavalry. Its a lot like the argument against base caps.  In a timed game, base caps can be a pain.  But the games have to be timed or the queue times would put people off the game.  So, to avoid base caps, smart players will guard their base USUALLY with spear or pike infantry.

All of these posts I read come down to this: people want to come in, play and not be part of team.  By nature, a multi-player tactical games is going to be team-based.  If you can't cooperate, you WILL get beat.

 

The problem is that the heavy infantry has no place in the team. It has no tactical role that it does better than cavalry OR spears. In fact Alexander cavalry is already better than spears so there is no point to bring ANY kind of infantry as it is seen from the cavalry spams. Right now you have a unit whose all the weaknesses are countered by how fast it is and sheer killing power. 

SPEEROARENACANUS #32 Posted 25 September 2017 - 04:19 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 113
  • Member since:
    07-08-2017

View PostArclinon, on 24 September 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

 

The problem is that the heavy infantry has no place in the team. It has no tactical role that it does better than cavalry OR spears. In fact Alexander cavalry is already better than spears so there is no point to bring ANY kind of infantry as it is seen from the cavalry spams. Right now you have a unit whose all the weaknesses are countered by how fast it is and sheer killing power. 

 

Exactly. Heavy infantry is only as good as the player playing against OTHER heavy infantry. This relies on the simple hope that other players will be playing heavy infantry regardless of their obvious weaknesses against high tier cavalry. At high tiers, players have recognized the superiority of Cavalry (Scipio and Alexander) and that's why you're seeing so many games where there are just tons of Cavalry. There is no defense against Alexander - they are nearly as weak as Archers being hunted down and are routed just as easily.

 

Want to instantly rout units and decimate large groups of all types of forces with impeccable mobility? Play Alexander.

Want to maintain a similar survivability to Roman infantry but gain massive mobility and better charge impact? Play Scipio.


"War Dogago Delenda Est."

And, as always, death to War Dogs.

- Cato the Elder, 2017


Robert_Oakridge #33 Posted 28 September 2017 - 04:54 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 107
  • Member since:
    09-14-2017
Oath of perserverance makes Roman cav game breaking.   Morale issues with game make Greek cav game breaking. 

Shoockwav #34 Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:19 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 41
  • Member since:
    09-25-2013
You'd think it's extremely difficult to lower a loyal roman infantry's morale, but no, a simple left flank and all the soldiers decide they'll give up 

R_Valle #35 Posted 29 September 2017 - 12:07 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 178
  • Member since:
    08-18-2017
The morale system is the big issue in this game right now.
I don't know who's idea it was to change the morale system, why not make it similar to any other Total War series?

Shoockwav #36 Posted 29 September 2017 - 12:19 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 41
  • Member since:
    09-25-2013
Even if the morale is kept the same, infantry need a desperate buff somehow, they're completely obsolete even though i love using it

Nooberto #37 Posted 29 September 2017 - 06:22 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Praetorian
  • 827
  • Member since:
    02-21-2017
As I said before, Cavalry need minor friendly fire damage like Phalanx for charge. It doesn't have to be devastating but it needs to be there. There needs to be a reason NOT to play Cavalry and right now there just isn't one. People will disagree and that's fine but this is my opinion as a Cavalry only player.
I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.

R_Valle #38 Posted 29 September 2017 - 01:50 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 178
  • Member since:
    08-18-2017
Cavalry is just way too good right now, there is no reason to play swordsman at all. They lose in a prolonged fight against any cav unit (except alexander's, but if alexander charges at you, its gg). Can't win against spears. Gets eaten by dogs. Any unit can go head to head against Swordsman.

Shoockwav #39 Posted 30 September 2017 - 07:55 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 41
  • Member since:
    09-25-2013
Not to mention getting constantly fired on by archers and artillery, with the infantry never being able to catch the archers. I sort of feel like the pilla is also underpowered




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users