We will never have an Archer vs Cavalry balance if they don't fix this

43+ Arbalester units stacked in one single tile fighting… Not even a PERFECT pathfinding would help the Cavaliers.

Video: https://clips.twitch.tv/StrangeDistinctHerringKappaRoss

20 Likes

onagers exist for a reason

10 Likes

Still, the stacking should be toned a bit down. Not removed, because it’s a strategic element (by placing your archers carefully you can win otherwise impossible fights), but things like this are really excessive imo.

11 Likes

I also agree. Stacking should still exist of course but it should be toned down or revised so this thing doesn’t happen or at least prevent this massive melee inmune black tile of death.

“Onagers exist so everything is fine! hurr durr”

10 Likes

Yea, agreed its kinda riculous.

4 Likes

Man… One good Onager hit and they are down. Do u know how hard it is to get 43 Arbalest back? If you lost 10 Knights you can create 10 Knights back pretty fast, but not Arbalest.

2 Likes

You can mock but most of the strategies have obvious answers. Even on Voobly, cavalry never wanted to confront arbs in chokes where they couldn’t flank the archers

3 Likes

Sure you should avoid going against archers when they stack in a corner, between buildings or in a gap in the trees. But that is not really what happens in this video.

The guy abused the “patrol” command and then clicked “stop” or “attack” when the units are about to change the patrol direction (that’s how you stack them like this).

Just don’t say that “onagers exist so this is how things should be”. So +50 attack +50 armor Knights would be ok because “Monks can still convert them”?

11 Likes

I agree it is so obvious that such a thing should never even be possible. There is no way to balance for such stuff. If 43 units offer only attacking space for like 4-5 units while they can still all fight they will win no matter what.
It is true that an onager could punish the archers but no matter the existance of onagers such a thing just cannot be allowed to happen.

They will have to change patrol the following way:

  • When making a 180° turn the entire stack stops in the same formation as it was walking before. The individual units then turn around 180° and walk back as an entire formation again. That way no unit walks through the other units. Problem solved.
  • Turns under 90° should be walked in a tight curve so that there is no stacking.
  • Turns larger than 90° I guess they will have to do the same thing as with 180° (individual units turn around) and then continue walking in a tight curve to where they have to walk.
  • When trying to move more units into a narrow space where there is no place just don’t let it happen. Keep minimum distance between units no matter what.
1 Like

Yeah i hate it man. But that doesn’t stop me from abusing it when i can.

Hopefully they resolve this… They should literally just increase the bump distance like so many other units have… Why should archers be allowed to act like a compressible gas, while so many other units cant…

4 Likes

I think the only way to “solve” this is an approach like @Arpheus2 said… Change the way Patrol works when units turn around.

Anyway pathing seems a bit better for melee units in the new patch (not 100% sure yet but I did some testings and it looks better). Better pathing will help to mitigate this patrol abuse, at least a little.

Yes all of this… the units basically need to just practice proper social distancing at all times! :grin:

2 Likes

There is no need to mess around with stacking behavior (needed for fluidly maneuvering large armies).

Instead just make it so, that limited amount of units can attack from a single tile (represents overcrowding). So for example when a guy stacks 43 arbalesters on a single tile, then let maybe 3-5 of them attack at once. Problem solved.

4 Likes

That is another easy solution. But it means heavy punishment for abusing mechanics and I guess sometimes stacking might happen without the intent to abuse mechanics.
Still a decent easy solution that will instantly stop OP stacking mechanics if they are able to implement that.

1 Like

They just need to implement the same fix they did to steppe lancers when they could all stack on a single tile. It’s silly that archers get to keep this but steppe lancers were fixed really early.

4 Likes

JoJo is right. You gotta get familiar with your siege especially Onagers and Mangonels. There’s almost no way around it when it comes to archer death-balls.

1 Like

The problem with this is it’ll be very hard to monitor when your army is fighting at full capacity and when its at 3/5 capacity.

2 Likes

I recognize the broken nature of the compacted units – I also recognize that the community will openly resist changing archer civs to have more options (other than archers and castles).

I do believe this is the result, unfortunately.

1 Like

As people said, you can counter that with siege, but…

I think that statement is actually false.
If pathing was perfect you could still surround that tile and get like 8-10 units to attack the Arbalests. If that works reliably, Cavaliers should still be able to trade okay’ish (not great) - and I think it’s very good that way, because there is room to micro the archers and take better fights, but they can never trade very efficiently unless you find a spot where you can stack them and cannot be surrounded - but if you do that, I think it is okay to be able to take a good fight there.

The important thing for balancing is that cavalry demolishes archers on an open field, even when clumped - and that would be the case with perfect pathing.