How to nerf Knights?

Additionally to this he creates an artificial testing environment that isn’t representative for the gameplay.
It reduces the evalueation of the units to very simple and specific battke scenarios that also basically never occur in real games.

In total what he demands is not only basically infeasible, but also completely useless for a proper analysis.

It even starts with the basic question of “how much does a certain unit actually cost”? And even at this we will have various different approaches. I for Instance one time made a evalueation tool that calcs the “worth” of a unit in a wood equivalent (which is basically an equavalent in villager working time). And for the initial investment costs I used a exponential time correction factor that basically corrects that investment by trying to answer the question “how much better would your eco be atm if you would have used that eco for booming instead”. IDK IF this is even the correct approach. Most likely it isn’t. The reality is much, much more complicated. But even with this approach there come a lot of “problems”, factors you either can’t really account for (like ressource distribution in your buildorders or the outplay of a drush or whatever rushes that are usually done) or you have to estimate. Like when are people getting the upgrades and how much the military buildings are “working” effectively.
And even with all this, the calc can basically only be apllied in a quasi “stable” state of the game where there are no tactical restrictions to your economy. Even if it’s designe was initially meant to calc when it’s best to get certain upgrades, depending on your investment in certain military, it still can’t be used to account for the different timing advantages due to faster age-ups. Especially as these decisions on when going for the age-ups are usually based on (dis-)advantages in the game.
As the whole calc is necessarily settled on the estimation that the state of the game is basically “even” and no one has a clear advantage, all the strategical ways to close or have a comeback in the game are necessarily unmappable by basically any mathematical or statistical evalueation which is targeted to be applyable for an “even” state.
This is only a very few words on “how complicated” this stuff is.
I made the calc for the “effective” cost of the units nevertheless to get a feeling for that, so I can try to account for that as much as I can in my unit designs or other ideas. But the goal isn’t even to get a “perfect solution”, rather than to see which options actually won’t work.

And I also won’t use that tool anymore, as it’s way too hard to use - I haven’t designed it well, so there is a lot of things that need to be inserted in crude ways. And then it’s basically impossible to explain what actually happens in the tool, at least here. So nobody can even follow if the steps are all correct and if I have accounted for everything.

And that’s only the second biggest crux of this “balance” stuff. The communication is necesarily flawed as everybody has a different take on the stuff and even the most “basic” mathematical approaches lead to extremely complicated tools that are hard to explain, as there is so much stuff to account for.
The bigger crux is… A game like this is necesarily disbalanced. At least when it comes to different timings, but also from strategical perspectives. Knights are the biggest military powerspike in the game. The Game is completely designed around that. It’s necessary for the game.

And this thread isn’t about changing that. It’s about how to reduce that powerspike in a fashionable way so it’s not that dominating anymore.
The question isn’t even IF that powerspike exists. And so far I have seen from basically every viewpoint, all possible calculations and test runnings, it is there.
If we now would run these tests that are promoted by @DMgCrowley we would necessarily come to the conclusion that Knights are totally overpowered (which is correct). But then we would need to actually nerf them to the ground and remove that powerspike entirely. And this is definitevely the last thing that should happen.

So this approach of “balance” isn’t even sufficient here. It’s not about making Knights “balanced” . Knights have always been imbalanced and intentionally imbalanced.
It’s actually only about trying to find ideas how this powerspike can be turned less decisive for the outcome of the game. Notably for the outcome, not necesarily to directly target the powerspike itself, but probably instead the ways to get to this powerspike or what happens after.

This was a lot of stuff. But I think it’s necessary, to make clear, this isn’t a “balance Knights” thread. It’s about accounting for the impact that powerspike currently has in the game dynamic and trying to get solutions for reducing that impact so other aspects of the game become more relevant.

1 Like

Don’t try and fix what isn’t broken, Knights are perfectly balanced.

Uh? Having to change other techs names is logically a reason against his change.
Having bloodlines/stirrups unlock knights when some civs dont have bloodlines is logically a problem with this change

1 Like

You just name the tech “military nobility” or whatever else, give it to all civs that shall get knights and… solved.

Logic thinking doesn’t mean to reject an approach only because of a bad naming. If it was like this, basically all current “knowledge” would have been dismissed. And you wouldn’t even be able to make that constructed fallacy argument as the words and constructs you need for that fallacy wouldn’t have been introduced into the language. As they appearantly lack a coherence that would stop you from constructing that kind of argument.

But that isnt what the person i was responding too wanted.

Im not rejecting just pointing out problems.

You make up problems where there aren’t some.

If we implemented his idea as be laid it out wed have two techs with the same name and a bunch of civs who sre supposed to have knights wouldnt have them.

Id call that problems

Some people call it “problems”, others “unsolced opportunities”.

Weird is only if people when presented solutions to their problems still insist in them being “problems”.

Yes, You presented a solution, but the OP, when I pointed out these problems, instead of acknowledging them, pretended like it was a non issue.

1 Like

I don’t think nerfing knight as a unit is a good idea at all. How about making pikemen upgrade cheaper or infantry armor upgrade cheaper to fend off the knights? not only it’s a buff to the barrack units (which they desperately need to be relevant in castle age) but also an indirect “nerf” to the knight without touching the knights.

7 Likes

While those things would be nice, the problem with knights is the mobility in castle age and population efficiency in late imperial. The problem with all (horse/camel) cavalry is mobility. You can have the best pikes in the world, but that is worthless if they don’t ever have to fight you.

Now that being said, there is a way to nerf knights without touching them imo. First, add more melee armour to buildings. Specifically, give most of them +2 melee armour to what they have now for all ages. Give vils and infantry +2 building bonus damage to compensate. Then, add an option to forcibly shut a gate, pushing all units towards either side and dealing them some damage. Make the militia line even cheaper. Lastly, add +2 bonus damage for TC arrows against cavalry from castle age.

With these changes, you will have a much harder time breaking buildings with cavalry and will have to rely on infantry (or siege) more. That gives pikes more time to get to the knights to scare them off. That is good imo.

1 Like

We already see a lot of walls as counterstrat against cavalry raids.
Ofc this would “work”, but only because something “works” doesn’t mean it’s a “good” solution.

I personally would prefer a different approach.
Some time ago I proposed the concept of giving more/better tools for vision, so you could see the raids coming and try to position your defencive military in advance.
With the development of the meta I have to say that I don’t think this is viable anymore. The game is currently so extremely macro intensive that you can’t track everything that 's happening anymore in the minimap, even if you have the vision.

I am against taboos. I am aware of why there is such a huge resistance against touching Knights.
But not all changes there are necessarily “bad” for them. For example one of my proposals is to change the food/gold ratio from 60/75 to 75/60. What would make the heavy cav more viable in the lategame, accounting for the fact that we speak about a melee unit in comparison to the range of archers and CA.
So I don’t think there should be a complete exclusion of Knights when it comes to balance. Maybe we should talk more about ways how we shouldn’t touch them instead.

As I already said, the thread isn’t about “balancing” Knights. Knights aren’t “balanced”. Everybody knows that and that’s totally fine. It’s only about how we handle the huge powerpike the early castle age Knight rush currently gives. At least this was my intention, though I didn’t had it that conscouus when I started the thread.

One idea, that came along several times also from me was about

And currently there are several posts and threads with totally different approaches for that active.

And ofc this can be a way to change that powerspike without touching the Knight itself. We could potentially open up a short session or poll in this thread about the advantages and disadvatages of the different infantry change ideas that are swirling around - with hte perspective of how they would interact with the Knight powerspike.

The issue with Infantry in general is that currently most infantry units are totally “uncool”. They lack important features to make them attractive as a commonly available core unit. Especially the pikeman as the antagonist of Knights.
And that’s ofc an Issue that should be overcome when Infantry should be used more actively. As I said, only because’ it works doesn’t make it necesarily “good”. There also has to be an incentive, an interest, an increase in the game experience to make it feel good aswell.

PS: I think we are on a good way already. It’s a tough topic, but it seems we approach a state where we can get some good and constructive discussion started.

I actually agree. Hey, if there is a better solution, I’m all ears. But as you’ve explained, there doesn’t seem to be many.

So we’re again at that point where we look for a different tool that replaces the strategical utility of walls…

We had somewehere ideas like the option to “convert” your own vills to spearmen/pikemen. I think it can work, but it needs to be restricted, both in terms of economic impact, but also in sheer numbers.
I don’t wanna have flemish revolution like effects for all civs in castle age.

2 Likes

The way I see it, this isn’t even an AoE2 problem, it is almost a mathematical problem. Because of the way knights and pikes work right now, you have two options. First is to force a fight by getting on their face. Second is to distract/trap them somehow.

I have an unorthodox solution, but I don’t know if this will really fit AoE2. That is to add a new trap building which 2x2 in size, and will slow down all cavalry units which pass though it to 50% of their base speed for like 15 in-game seconds (7-9 irl seconds). This building won’t be visible to an opponent untill a cav unit steps inside it, at which point it will lose some HP and become visible. You can repair it to full HP and it will become invisible again.

Interesting idea… but how does this outperform walls and houses?

A snare-type building would be interesting but it could equally be used by knight civs against things like archers.

Basically just wait for the archers to snare themselves (with enough traps this becomes very high probability) and then surround with ease because their hit and run micro would be extremely weak if their speed dropped to 0.5.

Yeah…

We had a similar idea already in another thread. There it was basically a “trap”

The advatage with a single unit trap is that a trap could just kill/damage a single unit, meaning that high value units like the knights would be the ones that are countered the hardest by it.

Disadvantage is ofc that single unit traps would basically rreplace making your own military for defence. So you would only make military for offensive purposes basically.

Archers are already deadly enough.

The trick with this would be to strategically place it. If something like this existed, it would be better to not fully wall and rely on this to deal with knight/cav raids. That means more open play is encouraged. One of the problem with pikes now is that they can’t move around freely without putting vils in danger. If you have like 2 militia and want them to regroup, they might accidentally open a gate and let knights in. They are also far too slow. The trap means that pikes now have a solid chance at catching up to the cav units. Cav units can’t just run from pikes anymore.

To make it more interesting, we can make it also affect friendly units. However, friendly units can see the trap and actively avoid them. Now, let’s add a cooldown to cav units to prevent trap spam. If they get caught and are slowed down, and another trap won’t affect them for 1 min. Instead, those traps will be revealed if they travel over them.

No, this cannot work on archers or infantry. That’s because of mangonels. Make one trap and have a sneaky mangonel, now all your archers are dead. Terrible idea. Also, cav are far more mobile and the whole point is to catch up with them. Not to hurt units which are already slow.

Good point, but I don’t it is remotely as bad with these units. Archers have base speed of 1, so halving their speed would make it impossible for them to get away from mangonels. Cav archers do more damage to mangonels than foot archers, and they still have 0.7 speed as compared to 0.5. I don’t think it’s a huge problem.