And i compared them later, the cav archers of tartars still beat the turk cavs archers. Also, i just tried and 17 mangudai vs 17 turks cav archer, the result is 2-4 mangudai surviving. Before you start saying magyars have the best cav archer, i also tried and mangudai wins also against them (4-6 remaining).
The point is that the tartars already have the strongest cav archers of the game but they also get a huge cliff bonus which makes them unbalanced.
So, I tried with the hussar formation and tartars still win vs cav archers but they lose, without hill bonus, vs magudai (usually 2-3 magudai remain). With hill bonus, 9-11 tartars cav archer remains + 1-2 hussars.
I don’t know how you are doing your testing but you should do a lot more iterations, because Tatar CA having better results vs Mangudais than Turk CA doesn’t make sense.
Both Tatar and Turk CA kill mangudais in the same number of hits, while Turk CA dies in 17 mangudais hits vs the 16 for Tatar CA.
If your results show Tatars being superior here I would seriously put a huge doubt over all your results because they don’t check out with what the data says.
How many iterations was that? Cause 1 on 1, turk will win. So how can they lose in groups either if they are of same size. (I’m about to start my own testing just for the h3ll of it, to see if frame delay plays a big enough role in big fights.)
Edit: How in the hell did you come up with mangudai beating turks? I’m pitting 20vs20 post-imp and turks live with 10 alive, with half of them low hp.
Attack rate matters the same in 1v1 as large battles after all. :S And turks win in 1v1. No question. Turks even won that group fight when I gave the mangudai the first shot, only turning from no attack stance to aggressive after their first shots connected. There’s not even much to iterate here imo since the numbers aren’t random unlike in paladin vs cataphract fights or melee fights in general.
All tests should really be done with both armies patrolling into each other. Just letting them stand with no input makes targeting a lot more random and therefore introduces a lot of noise in the data.
Oh I used patrol and stand ground for both sides, I just wanted to see what the results are when both are on staggered formation instead of the line formation. Now I can try it, thanks.
I don’t think you are lying, just that your tests are flawed and don’t properly reflect the reality of that game. And you are making drastic opinions about flawed results.
And I will repeat my question : given that Turk CA are tankier than Tatar ones against literally everything that isn’t a ranged unit with exactly 8, 9 or 10 damage, why aren’t you making a fuss about these too ?
Indeed the frame delay seems to be playing a good role in the bigger battles. (now that testing is proper) If you patrol them into each other (this was done with 60vs60 now btw), in line formation mangudai are the winner most of the time. However, if the turk player goes for staggered formation to counter this, he wins clearly. If both players go into staggered, turks win more but mangudai also have a chance to win, just not as good as in line vs line.
This is because in line formation, both sides just overkill their targets, but the mangudai acquire a new target faster, which adds up. In staggered vs line though, obviously, since staggered units have more targets there is less overkill so they will kill more units in the same time, but this obviously goes both ways, mangudai will win clearly if you make them have staggered and turks are in line formation. And staggered vs staggered the frame delay advantage plays less since singular units die slower, but more of them die “at the same time”, so the frame delay has less “stacks”.
I’ve no idea how I could get so interested in this sort of thing. <_> I got so bored and annoyed at restarting the game continuously I have 13 sets of 60vs60 in the same map, triggered to attack each other just to automate the process a little. And this is mostly offtopic anyways, cause Turks vs Mongols don’t really have anything to do with TaRtars anymore.
just wanted to add. basically all im playing now is tatars, and late game ive 1v2’d vs goths as well (aka i was fighting 2 players(isnt a pure 1v2, but its still large amounts of their forces) the keshik easily beats the karl, as well as bringing in extra gold for the tatar player while CA beat the pikes. it requires a fair amount of micro, and of course helps if there’s hills. but it still seems doable that tatars can beat goths on lombardia and arabia especially. on top of the whole tatars can raid goths early-mid
also wanted to add to the who’s CA is best argument, tatars have the potential to do 20% more damage than any other CA, combined with the +1 PA, puts them as situationally the most poweful CA by far. aka if the tatar can maximise their bonus to the fullest potential, their performance vs practically anything will beat any other CA maximising their own potential
eg turks have the most forgiving, but not much one can do to maximise their bonus. or cumans have massive potential with 0 frame delay but require a ton more skill
Only stance.