Cavalry Equipment Balancing

[Aluminum Elite Master]

[NOTE: An edit at the bottom does acknowledge that some weapons can only be bought by one side or the other, but that said, this same edit points out that almost all of these examples in the post are like-vs-like, which is to say, a weapon available to the CSA vs another weapon available to the CSA or whatever.]


So, here's a thing that's still somehow an issue:

Cavalry equipment that is more expensive is sometimes *worse*.

Now, I get that part of this might be due to trying to recreate the actual costs of the time or reflecting other historical elements. But consider the 1862 CS Richmond for example:

1862 CS Richmond is $41 a piece (all prices at a 10 rating in Economy, for referrence). And it's at 12.5 dmg, 240 range, 67 fire rate, 60 accuracy, 60 melee.

In comparison, the Maynard is $51 a piece and at 12.7 dmg, 260 range, 67 fire rate, 62 accuracy, and 50 melee.

It may seem minor, but if you look at the above, the Maynard hardly seems worth an extra $10 a piece. Aside from a very slight boost in accuracy and range, it's basically the same bit of equipment. Why buy the Maynard at all if I can get the 1862 CS Richmond and have basically the same weapon that is just going to do maybe ~ 10 kills less per volley (due to the tiny direct accuracy drop and the slightly more noticable drop due to having a shorter effective range).



But if that seems too minor, consider the melee equipment for cavalry:

Palmetto 1842 has 100 melee and 17 dmg at $23 dollars a piece, while the Remington 1861 at $33 does 91 melee and 12.5 dmg. Accuracy is the same, range is the same, and the only major improvement for the extra $10 a unit is fire rate, with the Remington having a big 214 to 75 advantage over the Palmetto.

The issue on this one is simple though: for $10 more, I'll be trading 100 melee for 91, and 17 dmg for 12.5, and only getting a better fire-rate (that is partially off-set anyways because, again, almost 5 dmg is lost).

Again, why bother with any melee equipment but Palmettos until I can get LeMats? Only on the LeMat does the melee go *up* when I pay more.

Worse, compare the Remington 1861 to the Colt 1855: the Colt, for a little less, is basically the same as the Remington, save that again the melee is 100 versus 91 (in favor of the *cheaper* Colt) while the Remington does 1.5 more damage and has a tiny 214 to 200 advantage in fire rate. Why trade 9 melee for barely noticable boosts elsewhere and spend *more* while doing so?



Lastly: the Burnside vs the Frank Wesson: the only real gain is dmg...same range, same fire-rate, slight boost for the Burnside in melee, but the Wesson has a whopping 75 accuracy vs the Burnside's 50... that seems substantial, especially given that both have the same range. Again, this is another spot where, unless I plan on using a ranged cav unit in melee, why bother with the Burnside? 25 accuracy is no small loss in deciding to trade for the Burnside which is more expensive.


Overall, a lot of text here, but after many hours playing this game, and even after some continued patching, I notice that the equipment is still a little weird balance-wise.


EDIT: Before anyone points this out, I can answer my own question, somewhat, by noting that not all equipment is available to either side, at least not directly (can be captured but not bought). But in most cases above, the examples listed are things that are both available to the same side. Like the Wesson vs the Burnside... both are available to buy only for the the Union. Now, if the Wesson was only CSA and the Burnside only USA, okay, makes sense. But when one is directly competing with the other by being available at the same time on the same side, that's weird, balance-wise. And likewise, melee equipment for cavalry is available equally to all sides IIRC, so there, too, it's not an issue of availability unless you buy the cheaper model out.

[Hugh de Salle]

Cavalry are expensive to replace so i only use chaep equipment on MG and above.

With Melee cavalry it dosent matter the cheaper the better as 2-1 ratios will win always.

As for carbine cavalry sure they have there use but in retrospect they require more micro management so im to lazy.

The mid carbines are pointless and i agree with you there only good for BG and below because you will have the cash to invest in them anything above BG i just sell em.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Cavalry are expensive to replace so i only use chaep equipment on MG and above.

With Melee cavalry it dosent matter the cheaper the better as 2-1 ratios will win always.

As for carbine cavalry sure they have there use but in retrospect they require more micro management so im to lazy.

The mid carbines are pointless and i agree with you there only good for BG and below because you will have the cash to invest in them anything above BG i just sell em.

Yeah, I basically agree with all of the above that you wrote.

On BG even, however, I don't see much point to the mid-tier carbines, because the advantages are so slight as to be almost offset by the reduction to range, accuracy, etc. No matter difficulty level, what's the point of the Burnside when as the same side (USA) I can take the Wesson for less cash? That's just hard numbers alone on each gun... 25 accuracy lost when "upgrading" from Wesson to Burnside? Nah, no thanks.

On MG, I don't even bother with cavalry equipment aside from Palmetto 1842's... you capture enough anyways to field a carbine unit or two of cav, so I never feel compelled to buy the stuff, since just the manpower alone costs money when making a cav unit.

In fact, most battles I only bring cavalry to capture enemy supplies... on MG, this especially true as even melee cav tend to get eaten alive by all those enemy units floating around that can fire into the backs of whatever target I charge. On BG at least, though, it's still possible to use melee cav pretty well. Even just running down skirmishers, though, isn't a good use of most cav, because a 250-man skirmisher unit mysteriously can hold its own pretty well against a 500-man/horse cav unit enough of the time.

[pandakraut]

Regarding the higher costs of worse statistical weapons. Sometimes this is used to represent the rarity or import status of certain weapons. In terms of pure min maxing there is no reason to use a lot of the carbines though. I usually just use whatever I capture and if I need to buy some I'll just get whatever has the longest range.

In some cases weapons that appear to have worse stats are somewhat misrepresented by the limited tooltip information provided. Additional information is available here http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/

[Spicy Camel]

Originally posted by pandakraut:

In some cases weapons that appear to have worse stats are somewhat misrepresented by the limited tooltip information provided. Additional information is available here http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/

Thats interesting reading, thanks.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by pandakraut:

Regarding the higher costs of worse statistical weapons. Sometimes this is used to represent the rarity or import status of certain weapons. In terms of pure min maxing there is no reason to use a lot of the carbines though. I usually just use whatever I capture and if I need to buy some I'll just get whatever has the longest range.

In some cases weapons that appear to have worse stats are somewhat misrepresented by the limited tooltip information provided. Additional information is available here http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/

Yes, this is also useful to point out. I should have added this in the beginning, because while a lot of cav weapons are indeed pretty close to useless from min-max, the truth is one or two aren't fairly represented. This is especially the case with one of the carbines IIRC (1859 Sharps, maybe?).

My main issue with Burnside vs Wesson is that the range remains the same. This I point out here because a lot of folks don't seem to realize that maximum effective range also affects accuracy. For instance, assuming I am describing things well here, a weapon with 50 accuracy and 300 max range is actually going to be more accurate at 250 yards out than a weapon with 55 accuracy and 250 max range. Distance to target is important, because it gets factored into accuracy, unlike in Starcraft and some other RTS games where max range is merely at what range the same damage can be applied... in Starcraft, being at the very limit of range vs point blank results in the same damage, but in this game, range matters.

In other words, some weapons that appear to have worse accuracy than another weapon actually have better accuracy, but because of how max effective range works, this can be obscured. Like I wrote, a weapon with a lower accuracy stat but a lot longer range can actually be much more accurate than a weapon with a higher accuracy stat but shorter maximum range, and this comes up in a few spots, especially with infantry equipment and skirmisher equipmet (but also with a few cannons, where the Whitworth cannon may not look exceptionally accurate until you realize that many targets may be out only at 3/4 or 1/2 of it's huge maximum range a lot of the time).

Again, though, the example of the Burnside vs Frank Wesson is still a perfect one... Burnside costs more despite having a -25 in accuracy compared to the Wesson, and unlike in most such cases, the range remains the same. This means it is, in fact, universally less accurate than the Wesson at all ranges, and substantially so.

[Spicy Camel]

While I agree that there is little reason to buy many cavalry and skirmisher weapons at all, you still get them as loot and can sell them. Here additional price comes handy.

And if you for some reason want many cavalry brigades, you will run out of "good" weapons in the store and start to buy what left.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Exactly what I do: I tend to sell every Smith and Burnside I capture... ditto with every Colt 1855 melee cav piece.

That said, fielding tons of cav I never bother doing, aside from if it's BG and there's a very specific reason to do it (2nd Bull Run, as CSA, you can actually use cav to overrun the rail-line fortifications prior to the CPU Union even getting to them, but that sort of thing is super situational and still only requires maybe 4 cav units at most if I micro well).

[PaloAlto]

I only buy Enfields for cavalry. Personally, I believe them to be the best cavalry weapon, but I will also dismount them a lot. Basically, they function as mobile infantry.

[Spicy Camel]

Cavalry corps shines in CSA Gettysburg as Day 1 flanking force - they will catch and destroy/capture every single retreating Union brigade.
And in the last battle of both campaigns, as there are 125 brigade slots, open terrain and lots of chaos.
Still very niche and you want mostly melee cav in that corps.

[pandakraut]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

My main issue with Burnside vs Wesson is that the range remains the same. This I point out here because a lot of folks don't seem to realize that maximum effective range also affects accuracy. For instance, assuming I am describing things well here, a weapon with 50 accuracy and 300 max range is actually going to be more accurate at 250 yards out than a weapon with 55 accuracy and 250 max range. Distance to target is important, because it gets factored into accuracy, unlike in Starcraft and some other RTS games where max range is merely at what range the same damage can be applied... in Starcraft, being at the very limit of range vs point blank results in the same damage, but in this game, range matters.

In other words, some weapons that appear to have worse accuracy than another weapon actually have better accuracy, but because of how max effective range works, this can be obscured. Like I wrote, a weapon with a lower accuracy stat but a lot longer range can actually be much more accurate than a weapon with a higher accuracy stat but shorter maximum range, and this comes up in a few spots, especially with infantry equipment and skirmisher equipmet (but also with a few cannons, where the Whitworth cannon may not look exceptionally accurate until you realize that many targets may be out only at 3/4 or 1/2 of it's huge maximum range a lot of the time).

Again, though, the example of the Burnside vs Frank Wesson is still a perfect one... Burnside costs more despite having a -25 in accuracy compared to the Wesson, and unlike in most such cases, the range remains the same. This means it is, in fact, universally less accurate than the Wesson at all ranges, and substantially so.

The game's usage of accuracy is a bit different than your description. Accuracy is really a poor term since all attacks in game always hit. An attack can end up doing 0 damage though. The in game accuracy values are used to generate a random value between the Accuracy Low(displayed in the tooltip) and accuracy high(hidden, see previously linked post). Note that the tooltip displays the accuracy low * 100. The random value is then multiplied by the weapon damage.

Range is another damage multiplier. For the Frank Wesson and the Burnside the possible values range between ~.9 and ~.45. So in terms of damage dropoff over range the weapons are the same. Most weapons have a unique damage dropoff curve and in some cases a 300 range weapon could have a worse multiplier at 275 range than a shorter ranged weapon. Apparently I forgot to include the graph for the enfield, I'll have to get that updated.

Applying only weapon damage and accuracy, the burnside has a base damage of 6.5 - 14.3. Frank Wesson has a range of 7.875 - 10.5. The burnside also has the advantage in melee. So the end result is that the burnside has a slightly higher average damage, but is less reliable.

The Burnside's price looks a bit more reasonable if you only look at the skirmisher weapons. There its range advantage over cheaper weapons justifies the price increase. But when you look at cavalry weapons the Enfield is just far and away the best deal if not the outright best option.

[PaloAlto]

Originally posted by ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥:

Cavalry corps shines in CSA Gettysburg as Day 1 flanking force - they will catch and destroy/capture every single retreating Union brigade.
And in the last battle of both campaigns, as there are 125 brigade slots, open terrain and lots of chaos.
Still very niche and you want mostly melee cav in that corps.

They certainly would be more beneficial if the mounted game mechanics weren't so wonky. It is a pain to have to dismount them continually, but I suspect they would be extremely overpowered if it wasn't for the wonky mechanics.

[Gurkhal]

If someone of you who have made full use of the cavalry in this game would find time, energy and interest to write up a guide to the use of cavalry in the game I'm sure that more people that just me would find it useful.

I mean, we're already got a guide to the use of artillery.

[pandakraut]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=941848997

[Gurkhal]

Thank you very much!

[CrashToDesktop]

I do agree that the cavalry carbines are pretty ambiguous. There's rapid fire carbines, long range carbines, and so many things in between that it's difficult to tell which are "better", if any at all. Even the P61 Enfield carbine - which most people consider the best cavalry carbine aside from the Spencer - gets it's valuable 300 range in exchange for having the lowest rate of fire out of all the cavalry carbines. The shock cavalry weapons are pretty simple though, they get better for the most part.