Mayflower wrote:
For example, if you might be able to produce 100 T1 spears in one day and 100 cavalry in 2 days. However the t1 spears take 2 days to reach a spot on the map and the cavalry only takes 1 day to reach the same spot. Therefore, both types of units take 3 days to reach a spot on the map (to break a siege, defend etc). This shows that the recovery rate of both types of units are roughly the same. |
About what is bold, you actually produce 4.3 T1 orc spear while you produce 1 T2 human cav in the mean time (and i dont speak even about advantage on sov for units production given to spears, due to almost inexistant weapons demands... cause then it would be around 9 T1 orc spear for 1 knight, if you compare the overall prod of spear based maxed orc and a cav based maxed human). And as said already T1 orc spears are even better than T2 overall, in terms of power given per time. And they cost almost nothing compared to the T2 version.
You talk about moving speed, and T1 are indeed faster than T2, and cav are still the very fastest units. But during a war, the speed of your def units doesnt matter so much: when you set a siege, you have all your time and can coordinate the launching times of the various def armies, for them to land on the said spot at the said time, so that movement speed for def units isnt an issue.
Also, whatever your speed is, if you attack a siege camp, you can anticipate your loss by starting to build few units during the travel, so that your recovery doesnt suffer of your speed.
So using the moving speed factor as to compare the recovery times isn't really relevant.
Cav are still very fast and can reach some squares before others do. But during a war, they will then mostly be used to break sieges (generally on mountains/forests) due to that fact... but as def units recovers even faster than before, when you do so you are more than ever making a non efficient move as def units will recover way faster than you. So when you do so, you are wasting your knights against the defense, it's a desperate default move.
As i already said, i think it's logical for cavalry to be less and less efficient on mountains/forests, but if you deeply think about it you wont really often be able to use the power of your knights in good conditions during a war (meaning on plains/small hills). You can't use Cav against sailly forths as noone use this, you can't inflict damage to a city with direct cav attack. Cavalry permit to threaten the plains so that people will avoid to defend on those, but you will rarely use your cav on plains during a war.
Any other type of units are able to play their best game by going on best terrains during a war (even Inf, if your alliance is territorial), but not Cav.
For me that was already a subject before this release, but now the question of cavs usefulness is more stressed out.
When you are a regional alliance, if you have good dwarves building infantry, you dont need to have cavalry units. Well, actually you need them to threaten the plains as i already said, but then, for your alliance to be efficient, you should never use them and let the Infantry do the work. They would only be used as unefficient and desperate move, only if your infantry fails.
As with such release, alliances are encouraged to be territorial furthur, this is what we certainly will see. So in a regional alliance, a human building cavalry should get bored of not using his cav, or only in bad conditions. He can build Ranged/Inf/spears too of course, but will be less efficient compared to other races.
That's why something could be done for cavalry to get a new ground of usefulnes, or to encourage battles on plain to happen a bit more often during future wars... but i dont have any idea about how to do this.
But i think we should see how it will really work for cav, and maybe do something about it in a next release if humans complain too much ^^'
Edited by opk - 01 Apr 2013 at 12:03