[PoP 3.7063] In-depth guide to heavy cavalry units

[sher]

Not a graceful way to bow out sher, but thank you. I'm sure just as you did in the Fierdsvain balance thread you will quit the argument knowing you're in the right.

I quit an argument because there's no argument with me and what I'm saying here. There's even no logic in discussion, why to continue? To have a hint why I waited a day and then decided to stop:

Spoiler

My post:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,351798.msg8453890.html#msg8453890
two next posts "answering" mine.
Yours:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,351798.msg8453923.html#msg8453923
in which you didn't get my irony it seems, but proved my point even by such strange reaction. You were not convinced by Lions "victory in test" to send them into infantry full of halberdiers because you know what would happen. So beside "captain obvious" results tests gave you results that contradict you personal experience so much that you didn't get obvious irony and took rhetoric question for offense.
Next:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,351798.msg8453951.html#msg8453951
This one is just "**** crazy". Train went even further from the rails, Leonion made (or found) video with group of Lions winning (wow!) against group of halberdiers (like it was in question) losing tons of men in the process but who cares when we can count survivors and "win an argument" I guess.

All this madness is constantly surrounded by screams (I don't know how to describe it differently) "Don't kill each other!", "Stop the hate!", "Micromanagement doesn't count!", "Peace!" and so on.

While it's kinda funny in its own weird way, it's a waste of time.

 

[Leonion]

Train went even further from the rails, Leonion made (or found) video with group of Lions winning (wow!) against group of halberdiers (like it was in question) losing tons of men in the process

Are you just trolling or are you seriously saying all of this?
Lions do lose plenty of men when they fight stronger opponents, but every single other mounted KO loses a lot more men when fighting the very same opponents.
And yet you keep saying that Lions' survivability rate sucks and they are not the best KO in real battles. Where is logic in this?

 

[sher]

My suspicion about Lions' superior performance is that they are average or above average in every category, with no weaknesses. Average armor, above-average weapons, top-tier stats, above-average horse, above-average mobility, summed together, gives you a pretty good knight.

Yep. Give them perfect conditions for them (just melee clash) and you have your winners. Better stats, better horse, great shield if they'll choose to use it, shorter lance for tighter melee. What would you expect from them, to lose to similar in setup but weaker in stats and equipment troops?

Where is logic in this?

In this there is no logic, that's why I stopped wasting time trying to show what you're doing wrong. Maybe you just can't understand this, other people will.

 

[Harding Grim]

Are you just trolling or are you seriously saying all of this?
Lions do lose plenty of men when they fight stronger opponents, but every single other mounted KO loses a lot more men when fighting the very same opponents.
And yet you keep saying that Lions' survivability rate sucks and they are not the best KO in real battles. Where is logic in this?

He just dodged your question. Every time he loses an argument, "there is no logic".

Here's the actual reason:

Spoiler

Everyone was too polite and humored you at every turn, sher, realize this. You finally stopped the argument when the insults stopped being one way (though nothing I or leonion have said is as impolite as what you've said.) I spelled out explicitly that A test that tests which units do best in a charge situation will not test which units do better when microed which you have, just as you have everything else, twisted and misrepresented saying as saying "micromanagement doesn't count".

If you need to post again and have the last word, feel free.

Well, if KotL do in fact have 10 Riding, I think this could be a good possibility. I'm going to try and dig up information on increases to Riding Skill, how +1 to Riding acts as modifier to charge or maneuverability, if at all.

 

[thermocline]

they do have 10 riding buffed from 9 in 3.6. sarleon knights have 9 riding now too. considering both of them outperform it really might be the reason.

 

[Leonion]

I'm going to try and dig up information on increases to Riding Skill, how +1 to Riding acts as modifier to charge or maneuverability, if at all.

Each point in Riding increases horse's speed and maneuverability (maneuverability was measured by one Russian tester by setting a timer and starting to rotate, and then counting a number of full turns per minute) by 2% per point.
As for charge - well, that's probably impossible to measure, but I think it's about 2% as well.

 

[sher]

Everyone was too polite and humored you at every turn, sher, realize this. You finally stopped the argument when the insults stopped being one way (though nothing I or leonion have said is as impolite as what you've said.) I spelled out explicitly that A test that tests which units do best in a charge situation will not test which units do better when microed which you have, just as you have everything else, twisted and misrepresented saying as saying "micromanagement doesn't count".

If you need to post again and have the last word, feel free.

Well, if you're asking for it so badly, you've started this topic so it must be important to you. I ignore out of politeness when people do something stupid giving them time to reconsider. Sometimes person is tired and do not read well, or miss something, sometimes person's just dense, there's no big deal if it causes no actual harm. I don't know what reason is in your case but I stated explicitly 2 times in this topic just several posts back that I don't use micromanagement mostly. Yet it never stops people from using it out of nowhere as justification for what they don't like. Should I use bold font, capital letters or something? Are you able to find it on your own if you missed it 2 times on the first run?

Are you feeling better now, when there's no conspiracy at all? Your leg is fine, you didn't shot it for real - it's only letters. I don't care if people insult me: if there's a valid reason then I have to change myself, if not - they're just speaking funny. We're discussing (trying at least) certain subject, people provide useful/valid information or they don't - there's nothing more for me, no killings, no wins/loses, no hate or something like that.

they do have 10 riding buffed from 9 in 3.6. sarleon knights have 9 riding now too. considering both of them outperform it really might be the reason.

Doubtful since they still were winners in 3.611 iirc.

 

[Leonion]

Better stats, better horse, great shield if they'll choose to use it, shorter lance for tighter melee. What would you expect from them, to lose to similar in setup but weaker in stats and equipment troops?

Lions are not the best ones at all when it comes to purely theoretical evaluations.
Falcons have similar weapons, worse WPs but better armor.
Griffons have worse armor and WPs, but higher PS and faster&longer weapons dealing roughly equal damage.
SLCs have better armor, better WPs, higher PS, much faster&longer weapons, better horses, and their only weakness is their weapons' raw damage.
Raven Spears have better armor and only use deadly morningstars as melee weapons.
Lions' horses are average, their shields are virtually the same as those of other KOs, and any lances are almost useless when it comes to tight melee.
Yet Lions are the ones who constantly outperform everyone, regardless of enemies and battle tactics (just charge or charge as a wave).
What you said is nothing but an incorrect ad hoc explanation.

I don't use micromanagement mostly.

Great. This means your troops are controlled by AI most of the time. And knight's effectiveness when they fight on their own is what we are testing here.

Maybe you just can't understand this, other people will.

Tough choice will they have. Dozens of tests on the one hand, your completely unsupported with facts opinion on the other one.

 

[sher]

Lions' horses are average, their shields are virtually the same as those of other KOs, and any lances are almost useless when it comes to tight melee.

Horses are average or better (which is understatement), shield is average or better, short lances are still better for tight melee than longer lances of other orders. Stats are better with only few orders with higher by 1PS or 10WP but with other disadvantages for tight melee... Yet we're still kinda amazed that they perform
better in this tight melee, real mystery here, miracle. Even SLC broadsword shined for a moment in a heat of a... argument.

Great. This means your troops are controlled by AI most of the time.

A-ha! So 3 times is the trick!

 

[Harding Grim]

Everyone was too polite and humored you at every turn, sher, realize this. You finally stopped the argument when the insults stopped being one way (though nothing I or leonion have said is as impolite as what you've said.) I spelled out explicitly that A test that tests which units do best in a charge situation will not test which units do better when microed which you have, just as you have everything else, twisted and misrepresented saying as saying "micromanagement doesn't count".

If you need to post again and have the last word, feel free.

Well, if you're asking for it so badly, you've started this topic so it must be important to you. I ignore out of politeness when people do something stupid giving them time to reconsider. Sometimes person is tired and do not read well, or miss something, sometimes person's just dense, there's no big deal if it causes no actual harm. I don't know what reason is in your case but I stated explicitly 2 times in this topic just several posts back that I don't use micromanagement mostly. Yet it never stops people from using it out of nowhere as justification for what they don't like. Should I use bold font, capital letters or something? Are you able to find it on your own if you missed it 2 times on the first run?

Are you feeling better now, when there's no conspiracy at all? Your leg is fine, you didn't shot it for real - it's only letters. I don't care if people insult me: if there's a valid reason then I have to change myself, if not - they're just speaking funny. We're discussing (trying at least) certain subject, people provide useful/valid information or they don't - there's nothing more for me, no killings, no wins/loses, no hate or something like that.

Give them perfect conditions for them (just melee clash) and you have your winners. Better stats, better horse, great shield if they'll choose to use it, shorter lance for tighter melee. What would you expect from them, to lose to similar in setup but weaker in stats and equipment troops?

Yes, if you test the melee capabilities of melee units against other melee units, then it will be a useful thing to know.

You use the case of KotL vs. KotG after the fact, having the benefit of now knowing that the combat attributes advantage and better ebony weapons do not outweigh whatever advantages the Lions have. The tests quantify that having better weaponry and additional Powerstrike doesn't negate the weapon proficiency/riding edge of the KotL (which could suggest that the +3 Riding skill advantage via speed bonus damage overcomes the base damage edge of ebony weapons, which have a reputation for being the best weapons in the game.) It's just brazen to use a conclusion solidified by these tests to try and discredit and devalue the very tests that produced it.

If you ever said that KotL > KotG for 3.7 before this or thermocline's weapon thread as if it was that obvious, then please.

Are you feeling better now, when there's no conspiracy at all? Your leg is fine, you didn't shot it for real - it's only letters. I don't care if people insult me: if there's a valid reason then I have to change myself, if not - they're just speaking funny. We're discussing (trying at least) certain subject, people provide useful/valid information or they don't - there's nothing more for me, no killings, no wins/loses, no hate or something like that.

You still cannot help yourself but to backdoor more insults saying I shot myself in the foot and believe in any conspiracies. It is pretty funny. If you criticize me for misconstruing your intentions, this is generally why reasonable people make their points without being sarcastic and insulting those that disagree with you.

 

[Leonion]

Horses are average or better (which is understatement), shield is average or better

Well, yeah, after rechecking I have to admit that Lions' horses have higher protection (58/54 vs ~50 in case of other horses), roughly equal speed (40/39 vs 40, 42, 39 etc.), same maneuverability, generally higher charge (26/28 vs ~22) and slightly more health (160/150 vs ~145), which indeed can help their case, but definitely not to the point of making them the best KO just because of this.
Also SLCs' and Radiant Cross's horses are better than those of Lions'.
As for shields - Lions's shields have 500 HP, 14 defense and 100 speed like most other shields. Their only advantage is bigger size (119 vs ~90) which might indeed contribute to Lions' superior performance.

But let's get back to tests.
This time I picked random ordinary lords at a random moment of their lives and tested mounted KO knights against them.
For charge I used this "wave" tactics (and from this point troops are left on their own):

Spoiler

The following lords were selected as victims:

Spoiler

Generally there is no more tight space, there are plenty of (horse) archers and yet here is the result (which is also survivability rate):

Spoiler

Is this "real battle" enough or you will still claim that these tests have nothing to do with an actual game?

 

[Harding Grim]

Oh? What's this?

Same results vs. in-game lord parties as the 'perfect conditions' artificial 50-man KO parties?

Knights of the Lion on the top, as determined by the tests earlier?

Knights of the Dragon on the bottom of the heavy cavalry KOs, also determined by the tests earlier?

Lady Valkyries and Windriders on the dead bottom?

First of all, the argument was:

Wrong again. You cannot prove transition from your fictional tests to actual game except "This is obvious!" so it's only a matter of faith. Some people have faith simply by getting some numbers. Will it help them to improve their armies? Doubtful.

Not to mention shifting the goalposts to pretending it's blatantly obvious KoTL > Shadow Legion Centurions and Knights of the Griffon:

Give them perfect conditions for them (just melee clash) and you have your winners. Better stats, better horse, great shield if they'll choose to use it, shorter lance for tighter melee. What would you expect from them, to lose to similar in setup but weaker in stats and equipment troops?

Leonion proceeds to "prove transition of fictional tests to the actual game"... because they were not 'fictional' tests all along.

This is what shooting yourself in in the leg actually looks like.

Is this "real battle" enough or you will still claim that these tests have nothing to do with an actual game?

I'm going to guess the answer is still "no". There is still no logic.

 

[heckani]

@Leonion
I really really enjoy how organized and absolutely beautiful the way you make these posts. The screenies (screenshots) and the excel tables. Seriously it´s a pleasure to look at Leonion. Great work.
Good choice by picking one of each factions btw! Also very suprised the Sarleon were THAT good. Was it 50 sarleons knights of the lion again you used?

The tests really shows how amazing they are. And thats great to know since I always really liked them but never knew just how good they were, there kinda like my fnew swadian knight fav!
I think with these new tests, then I can´t say what I said earlier with Sher about them not being able to used properly in an argument proving they truly are better. But now with those tests right there (as expected no big suprise) there can be no doubt.

@Harding Grim They´re superior period. Can´t see how that can be denied right now. One thing is doing great in tests which of course as said earlier can not be used if it was in courth, but with these new tests they definitely can. That´s absolutely crushing numbers.

@Sher, thanks for your response to me, I really appreciate it. I hope you and Leonion/Harding Grim will settle this. I know I mgiht be out of line commenting on it. But would it not be easier to, prove yourself some other Ko that is better than KOtl and show why? If not tests then real gameplay. The new tests are just like real gameplay are they not? I know you might say that they were not distracted, in a real battle there will be more different units etc etc. But not nessasairly, if you just run pure KO knights right?

And even if so, any job that another knight does, so can the knight of the lion do, if not better. I know there canm be extremely pinpoint situations where perhaps some other weapon or I dont know what is better. But OVERALL, are they really not better? What else is better than them, UI´m sure if you say some other KO Leonion or Hardging Grim could test them by fighting lord parties. If thats not good enough I don´t know what is. They´re definitley betetr in my mind and im confident from these tests in a pvp battle they´d win if one player controlled kotl and another another KO. So really if some other KO is better, perhaps show it in some way?

At least lets stop the insults or harsh lagnuage. Lets just be calm, and if osme other Ko is btter then show it Please. No point in going back to odler posts and saying he/she said that. Lets just move on and focus here. Ye?

To me that seems alot simpler..At least. Like prove it or tell them what to do to convince you or to show that you are right.
Just my two cents. I dont mean to not believe you.

@Leonion, Harding Grim. Thank you thankl you thank you, for all these tests once again. I for one really appreciate it. I just try and remain neutral and learn from all of you. 

 

[Harding Grim]

Sometimes person is tired and do not read well, or miss something, sometimes person's just dense, there's no big deal if it causes no actual harm. I don't know what reason is in your case but I stated explicitly 2 times in this topic just several posts back that I don't use micromanagement mostly. Yet it never stops people from using it out of nowhere as justification for what they don't like. Should I use bold font, capital letters or something? Are you able to find it on your own if you missed it 2 times on the first run?

Well, he told me to go back and read his previous posts, so I did. 

Wrong again. You cannot prove transition from your fictional tests to actual game except "This is obvious!" so it's only a matter of faith. Some people have faith simply by getting some numbers. Will it help them to improve their armies? Doubtful.

Just to hammer it home that this is the guy that three different people were extremely patient with (and others in the past too). I can't believe Leonion was gracious enough to actually put together these results and actually prove him wrong on his own terms, in such an organized and clear fashion.

(Also, I didn't run any of the tests. As far as I know only Leonion and thermocline know how to use the testing script at the moment, so they as well as the Russian testers are the only ones that deserve the credit. I'm going to take a moment and read up on how to use the script myself, there are a few questions I'd like to answer as well!)

 

[sher]

Give them perfect conditions for them (just melee clash) and you have your winners. Better stats, better horse, great shield if they'll choose to use it, shorter lance for tighter melee. What would you expect from them, to lose to similar in setup but weaker in stats and equipment troops?

Yes, if you test the melee capabilities of melee units against other melee units, then it will be a useful thing to know.

Yeah, without "tests" 3 becomes 2 but now we're safe. Because we have them "tests". Oh my, you will not like my next post to Leonion.

You use the case of KotL vs. KotG after the fact, having the benefit of now knowing that the combat attributes advantage and better ebony weapons do not outweigh whatever advantages the Lions have. The tests quantify that having better weaponry and additional Powerstrike doesn't negate the weapon proficiency/riding edge of the KotL (which could suggest that the +3 Riding skill advantage via speed bonus damage overcomes the base damage edge of ebony weapons, which have a reputation for being the best weapons in the game.) It's just brazen to use a conclusion solidified by these tests to try and discredit and devalue the very tests that produced it.

If you ever said that KotL > KotG for 3.7 before this or thermocline's weapon thread as if it was that obvious, then please.

I have no slightest idea where this thing about KotG came from, perhaps from the same source as micromanagement. I can assure you I don't care about KotG at all, and never did.

You still cannot help yourself but to backdoor more insults saying I shot myself in the foot and believe in any conspiracies. It is pretty funny. If you criticize me for misconstruing your intentions, this is generally why reasonable people make their points without being sarcastic and insulting those that disagree with you.

It's not backdoor - it's in front of everybody. It's not funny to make assumptions about malign intentions of other people based on voices in your head without remembering what they (real people) said exactly, having an opportunity to reread in any moment. It's pretty shameful actually yet somehow I am still to blame. And new thing like KotG has appeared and I am somehow connected to it. Yes, I am not nice about it but I shouldn't be. Fortunately it doesn't bother me much, it's just bizzare.

 

[heckani]

Give them perfect conditions for them (just melee clash) and you have your winners. Better stats, better horse, great shield if they'll choose to use it, shorter lance for tighter melee. What would you expect from them, to lose to similar in setup but weaker in stats and equipment troops?

Yes, if you test the melee capabilities of melee units against other melee units, then it will be a useful thing to know.

Yeah, without "tests" 3 becomes 2 but now we're safe. Because we have them "tests". Oh my, you will not like my next post to Leonion.

You use the case of KotL vs. KotG after the fact, having the benefit of now knowing that the combat attributes advantage and better ebony weapons do not outweigh whatever advantages the Lions have. The tests quantify that having better weaponry and additional Powerstrike doesn't negate the weapon proficiency/riding edge of the KotL (which could suggest that the +3 Riding skill advantage via speed bonus damage overcomes the base damage edge of ebony weapons, which have a reputation for being the best weapons in the game.) It's just brazen to use a conclusion solidified by these tests to try and discredit and devalue the very tests that produced it.

If you ever said that KotL > KotG for 3.7 before this or thermocline's weapon thread as if it was that obvious, then please.

I have no slightest idea where this thing about KotG came from, perhaps from the same source as micromanagement. I can assure you I don't care about KotG at all, and never did.

You still cannot help yourself but to backdoor more insults saying I shot myself in the foot and believe in any conspiracies. It is pretty funny. If you criticize me for misconstruing your intentions, this is generally why reasonable people make their points without being sarcastic and insulting those that disagree with you.

It's not backdoor - it's in front of everybody. It's not funny to make assumptions about malign intentions of other people based on voices in your head without remembering what they (real people) said exactly, having an opportunity to reread in any moment. It's pretty shameful actually yet somehow I am still to blame. And new thing like KotG has appeared and I am somehow connected to it. Yes, I am not nice about it but I shouldn't be. Fortunately it doesn't bother me much, it's just bizzare.

Sher, what do you think about Leonion´s tests? He tested them against lord parties, what OTHER unit/KO than the knight of the lions are better then?

 

[sher]

Also SLCs' and Radiant Cross's horses are better than those of Lions'.

No, they're not. SLC horse is slower which is worse for such engagement especially, Radiant Cross's are simply no better.

What is more interesting is immediate defense instead of dealing with data. And what a defense it was.

Is this "real battle" enough or you will still claim that these tests have nothing to do with an actual game?

No, they're still not real because I don't ride alone with 50-100 KO (was it 50 in this test?) knights in this game. If you do then these are OK tests for you. Kinda. Even if you too don't, they're still excellent but not in the way you may think I'm afraid.

I'll remind you of the results of previous "tests", which were so good and nice to have I guess:

Radiant Cross Knights vs Falcons: 14:0; 29:0; 33:0
All hail Crosses, they're clearly so good and stronger!
Radiant Cross Knights vs SLCs: 0:30; 0:14; 0:21
SLCs owned them, bastards!
Radiant Cross Knights vs Griffons: 27:0; 4:0; 28:0
Crosses returned, they rule! Such a good armor!
Radiant Cross Knights vs Raven Spears: 0:12; 27:0; 20:0
Spears kinda rule, it must have been their morningstars!

Griffons vs SLCs: 0:27; 0:30; 0:35.
SLCc strike again, bastards!
Griffons vs Raven Spears: 0:18; 0:11; 0:26.
Spears are mean savages too!
Falcons were not even tested because they're suckers.

Let's have a look at performance of Lions, Griffins, Crosses and "considerably worse" (iirc) Falcons in new very good "tests".
I cannot copy paste from that picture but why mighty Crosses, Griffins and miserable Falcons perform the same? Lions are slightly above them. Spears who rocked in previous "indicative and useful tests" perform worse than troops they were kicking out (mighty morningstars and all that jazz), SLCs too? Why did results change so drastically with only one step closer to real game and what they were representing actually in first "very good to have" tests? And what they represent in these new very good tests?

You may call me "a twister" but I just don't want to say out loud what this indicates. It's not a loss for me but people spent time on this for some reason.

 

[Leonion]

sher, Falcons were tested before too.
In Sirrega's test against Immortals they were on the 11th place among all KOs.
In Sirrega's test against Radiant Cross they were on the 9th place among all KOs.
In my 3.6 tests vs SLCs, Windriders, Demoni Magni and so on (9 group of enemies total) they ended up the 8th.

The problem is its majesty random. It's terrible and seriously affects battle outcomes.
For example, we on a Russian forum had an extremely weird situation with 50 Immortals vs 50 Radiant Crosses tests.
Here are all the results we got (all tests were performed under similar conditions):
Cases where Radiant Crosses won: 19:0; 29:0; 25:0, 20:0, 30:0, 1:0, 40:0, 7:0, 12:0; 26:0; 16:0
Cases where Immortals won: 0:25, 0:24, 0:3, 0:30, 0:12, 0:18, 0:19, 0:15, 0:7, 0:20
That's what Warband random is like. So far the only guys I know that never falter and never lose (unless we're talking about an impossible battle that was also lost by every other contestant) are Lions.
So despite the fact I've done 5 tests with each mounted knight, there is still a chance that some of them just kept being (un)lucky. That's why some results differ from what we had before.
Another reason for this is that high-end troops (like other KO troops or HAs or Forlorn Hopes) which were used in tests before usually have great armor and that's a situation where knights with morningstars shine while knights with swords fail. That's the reason why I switched to more generic lords parties.
Even now results of our tests may not be great predictors of troops' effectiveness but at least we are assembling some sort of a database which gets better and better, we're not just sitting on our asses criticizing others work, claiming that it is all pointless and keeping judging troops by how they look and estimating their performance by sight.

No, they're not. SLC horse is slower which is worse for such engagement especially, Radiant Cross's are simply no better.

What is more interesting is immediate defense instead of dealing with data. And what a defense it was.

What defense are you talking about?
When I make a mistake, I always admit it. And I admitted that my memory didn't serve me well and that Lions' horses and shields do likely give them a certain advantage.
As for tests - I started them 3 days ago and finished them yesterday doing my last battles while replying to your message, so I just posted the results.

As for horses (again):
Lions' horse 1: 58/40/36/26/160
Lions' horse 2: 54/39/35/28/150
Ironbred Charger (RCs' horse): 65/38/34/28/170 (their other horse is indeed worse)
Ironbred Stallion (SLCs' horse): 70/38/34/27/190.
Like I mentioned before, with the exception of ironbred horses, lions' horses are superior in the way that they have noticeably better armor, more HPs and higher charge. If we say that this is what actually makes them better than other horses, we have to admit that SLCs' and one of RCs' horses outperform them. But if it's an average of 1,5 speed difference that matters most, then other horses are not much worse than Lions'.

 

[heckani]

Sometimes person is tired and do not read well, or miss something, sometimes person's just dense, there's no big deal if it causes no actual harm. I don't know what reason is in your case but I stated explicitly 2 times in this topic just several posts back that I don't use micromanagement mostly. Yet it never stops people from using it out of nowhere as justification for what they don't like. Should I use bold font, capital letters or something? Are you able to find it on your own if you missed it 2 times on the first run?

Well, he told me to go back and read his previous posts, so I did. 

Wrong again. You cannot prove transition from your fictional tests to actual game except "This is obvious!" so it's only a matter of faith. Some people have faith simply by getting some numbers. Will it help them to improve their armies? Doubtful.

Just to hammer it home that this is the guy that three different people were extremely patient with (and others in the past too). I can't believe Leonion was gracious enough to actually put together these results and actually prove him wrong on his own terms, in such an organized and clear fashion.

(Also, I didn't run any of the tests. As far as I know only Leonion and thermocline know how to use the testing script at the moment, so they as well as the Russian testers are the only ones that deserve the credit. I'm going to take a moment and read up on how to use the script myself, there are a few questions I'd like to answer as well!)

Oh yeah completly forgot themocline! Much appreciated for his work! Thanks for reminding me!

 

[Harding Grim]

No, they're still not real because I don't ride alone with 50-100 KO (was it 50 in this test?) knights in this game. If you do then these are OK tests for you. Kinda. Even if you too don't, they're still excellent but not in the way you may think I'm afraid.

Your personal definition does not affect the actual definition. By yours, if you never use Lady Valkyries, then any test containing a Lady Valkyrie isn't real since you don't ride with any of them into battle, just like you don't ride alone with 50-100 KO knights in this game. Hence such a test could never be real in your eyes.

If you test a unit alongside others, that is no longer testing that unit. The purpose of controls and variables is so we can be confident that we've isolated the effects observed to the cause, not external factors. Every output of damage is traceable back to a specific unit. No enemy unit dies until it gets struck down by that unit, as opposed to a horse archer arrow you have in your party or an infatryman. That's why they aren't there.

I have no slightest idea where this thing about KotG came from, perhaps from the same source as micromanagement. I can assure you I don't care about KotG at all, and never did.

I said "using the case of KotL vs. KotG" to refer to your pretense that the results were already obvious. My point regarding KotL vs. Griffons or vs. Shadow Centurions that prior to the test, you can make any of these subjective claims.

i) KotL are the best since they have the most health, better horses, and better riding.
ii) SLC are the best because they have the best stats/attributes/weapon proficiencies.
iii) KotG are the best since they have ebony swords and almost maxed out attributes.

Before, people who have made claims ii) and iii) had a legitimate argument that remained to be tested. We could just accept them on their word. Now, they are objectively wrong.  (Just like with Maiden Nobles, we actually both made the same claim that as primarily melee units, they would fall faster since they must be in close combat 100% of the time. The evidence proves that wrong as well.)

To the naked eye, these three knighthood orders are extremely close. But the results show that the KotL leave the other two in the dust. No one but you is claiming that i) is self-evident to the point that it's deserving of sarcasm that the results would corroborate it.

Horses are average or better (which is understatement), shield is average or better, short lances are still better for tight melee than longer lances of other orders. Stats are better with only few orders with higher by 1PS or 10WP but with other disadvantages for tight melee... Yet we're still kinda amazed that they perform
better in this tight melee, real mystery here, miracle. Even SLC broadsword shined for a moment in a heat of a... argument.

The fact you're trying to backwards-rationalize why it's obvious Sarleon performed best after the tests were already made... kind of takes away the rhetorical impact of the sarcasm there.

If it had turned out that SLC were winning, then you would reframe it like this:

Horses are average or better. Proficiencies are far superior to that of the other Orders. They have the best attributes (which is an understatement), 10/9/9 and 27 Strength. They are the only KO with broadhead throwing spears. Yet we're still kinda amazed that they perform better in this tight melee, real mystery here, miracle. Even the Griffon ebony sword shined for a moment in a heat of a... argument.

If it was self-evident to you that KotL were the single best KO unit... then the tests conform to your own prediction, which indicates that they were valid. Otherwise, the KotL would not have been so consistently dominant.