With 10 base attack in imperial, against a generic FU melee unit, the attack does 10 - 3 (imp armor) = 7 damage, halved for 3.5 on the splash.
With 8 base attack, against a generic FU melee unit, the attack does 8 - 3 (imp armor) = 5 damage, distributed evenly.
So long as you hit three or more units against a zero-armor target, it’s a slight buff. The higher the armor goes, the worse off the new version becomes, since it has less damage to lose.
It was always pretty good against clumped ranged units, and this change has made them better in that role specifically. Hitting a lot of units with each attack from chakrams otherwise isn’t so reliable except in chokepoints. In those cases, it really depends on the unit.
This unit was already bad against cav, now it’s absolute garbage, generally speaking, but that’s why the gurjaras have good camels.
Principle’s the same, though totally spaced on the blast furnace. Honestly never notice the lack of it in game, seeing I’m just always winning the fights with the camels and the shrivamshas. That honestly makes the change way more polarizing and I’m more keen to call it a nerf.
With 8 attack that brings the base damage down to 5 against a zero-armor unit with full imp upgrades, and 3 after the change. That means with a single point of base armor on the target, the unit now does less damage, full stop, than it’s 50% counterpart. (4-2 versus 2 to all)
Forget them against anything above that. The Genoese with Pavise take one damage.
Only vs low armor units such as archers which tbf are supposed to be their counter. But on the flip side you’ll only ever deal 1 dmg to heavy cav so at least any civ with last cav armor upgrade now has a solid melee counter.
nerfed vs primary target and nerfed vs the secondary target, too. The UU might not be worth making now.
Honestly, after the Mill and Shrivamsha nerfs, Gurjaras were sort of balanced, certainly not as OP as Poles for example. A further nerf to Kshatriyas from 25% to 20 or 15% would have left the civ in a good spot.
Right I’m not complaining in case that’s how it’s perceived.
Before the nerf they just have no bad matchups + lots of very good matchups.
They still have cheaper elephant archer with extra melee armor in that matchup.
are you using the real world definition of infantry? then yes you are right
otherwise: no, not only “infantry”. chakram are better vs groups of archers
which is what i said(they’re better at what they were always good at) they’re now even better at countering mass halbs and arbs. and conveniently, gurjaras happen to have the best camel in the game for countering heavy cav. not sure why you wouldve been making chaks vs heavy cav anyway
but in hindsight they are weaker vs siege (the other thing they were really good at sniping)
the full analysis of how they perform
nah. they’re better vs what they were intended to counter. its like saying halbs getting -1 base dmg but +10 anti cav dmg is a nerf. it isnt.
especially since gurj specifically have such an amazing cav counter already. going by the above chart, its literally only some niche infantry, and HEAVY cav (not even cav in general), that chaks are worse against, that means nothing. you have HC for those specialised infantry, and camels for the cav, you shouldnt have been making chaks to fight them in the first place
I wouldn’t say they’re better at what they’re intended to counter because that’s a pretty bold-faced lie.
You are claiming that because your chakram hit six units and did four more overall damage split between them as a result of the change, that this is a strict buff. Meanwhile, their performance against Archers (a unit that very readily clumps up) has been nerfed unless you hit six units and assuming they don’t have any more than generic armor (forget them against HCA, they’re total garbage) and outside of those circumstances they’ve been very clearly nerfed.
Then you consider that in a situation where the unit is fighting a unit, or a stray chakram nails a unit the Chakram thrower isn’t intended to counter and does absolute jack, this isn’t an issue and this is still clearly a buff, because units never have fights against units they aren’t intended to counter.
Take this logic back to the Slinger and explain to me why they aren’t made. The unit was changed. Claiming it as a buff is a bad call. It’s probably a nerf.
The halb thing is a really funny sidetable though. It’s a goldless investment made strictly to take cost effective fights against a single unit type that you don’t make otherwise. If the Chakram didn’t take a castle and cost gold, you might have a point in that regard.
No, I’m saying I wouldn’t say it because it’s a lie. I don’t think they were buffed, hence doing so would be lying. You saying so doesn’t make you a liar, since you believe it, I just think you’re wrong.
I think the idea that they weren’t ever meant to deal with archers, and therefore the nerf being not a nerf against “what they are intended to counter” is a bit misguided. That supposes they never had any clue how good they were performing against archers and that just slipped by during production, which I doubt. They’ve certainly decided to focus the unit, which is why I’m not calling it a buff.
You don’t work on an expansion and play with the unit for months without getting relatively good overall tests of the unit. The unit being good against archers wasn’t some “oopsie” and the fact that this facet of the unit was pretty directly nerfed in exchange for some benefits against infantry groups isn’t “oh look they made the unit better in what it’s supposed to do” it’s “They’ve focused the unit specifically on one facet of it’s capability” and that’s not a buff.