ok if number of cav players per team gets a limit
lol? so when a cav wants to play, he gets 'You can't join because you ahve a horse' message? really fun, eh?
No, if a non dedicated cav player made this post i would believe it, this way no.
No, if a non dedicated cav player made this post i would believe it, this way no. It was horrible and unplayable this past few days, situations like 4 out of 5 random plain maps. 3 Random plain maps in a row etc. Ofcourse you loved it, you owned on those maps as you should but if you call that balance you are wrong, and teamwork can be used on every single map so just because you see guys taking pikes and forming groups its not that they are having some great teamwork master plan, its just because they are tired of getting picked off by cav on these wide open spaces.
I dont mind 1 out of 4 or even 1 out of 3 maps being random plains, but anything more then that would be unblanaced, and unfair to other clases. As it was stated this random plains spam was a bug and i hope it was fixed to the normal balance as it should be
My answer , after playing those maps on my shielder character, is yes.
Probalby shouldnt have made the 1st statement seeing how everyone focuses on that thing
The important part being: 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3 is balanced map rotation not 3 in a row
Yes but the thing you see as shield walls and pikes and such are not some grand teamwork plans, that is just people adapting to the map that is presented to them. Just like in city maps you have archers going on roofs, or shielders atacking archers, groups advancing on each other etc, village map camping hills or villages and such.
My point being: just because it doesent look like some kind of formation doesent mean that teamwork isnt being used. Teamwork is a integral part of every map not just plains. It is just more obvious at plains maps because you can see all the people together in clusters (mainly in this way protecting themselves from being picked off) and other would be formations that the map requires.
You're still missing the point. People jumping on roofs ect is all very well, but it's still just them working by themselves. I know there are small pockets of team work, but I rarely see a group of infantry actually working together (other than following each other towards the enemy), or cavalry forming together or archers focusing attacks. I'm talking about one or 2 guys taking command (hell we have a command system for a reason, otherwise just take it out of crpg) and some taking charge of cavalry, as a group, some of infantry, as a group, and some of archers ect, as a group. You never see that. It wasn't adaptation, it just happened that there were a few guys handing out orders and once you get a small group together, people tend to flock to that until they realise teamwork is actually helpful.
Again, I'm just saying, there aren't many pure open plains maps. They are either camp village, camp hill or random brawls. Cav formations aren't seen because often there's no point when everyone is on their own. When GK are together, regardless of the map, we form up together. Only the town maps we don't because you can't do it in a street very easily. But infantry ect don't work together on a big scale (which would be very useful on street maps) and the majority of the time archers don't all help each other out, focus fire on certain players/horses ect. But the point being, most maps you don't really need to work together because your in amongst the enemy and essentially reliant on your own skill.
Open plains maps require that you work together else you'll be caught out on your own in the wide open. Honestly I think they are more realistic. How many sieges ect actually ended up with open fighting in the streets between armies? I just feel like they are a bit more realistic and so add a form of excitement to the game. I did say I don't expect every map to be this way. But it would be nice to see a few more of them.
Realism discussions are obsolete for various reasons so i wont go into that. And what exactly are you suggesting for the map frequency?
No. Open plains=cav fest. A good map gives all classes options, not just cav.
Good maps: mirrored with obstacles and cover for all players. Variable heights, choke points, and a decent amount of open ground. If a map has all of this, it is a well balanced map.
large open flat plains with little to no cover is bad map design.
What makes you think open maps are easier for cav ? When the map is open, people naturally tend to stick together and protect each other with shieldwalls and pikes. Try attacking a shieldwall protected by 4 pikes as a cav. Good luck. Only very bad players die to lone cav in those situations (those 2 handers that voluntary go away from teammates to try their luck against a lancer deserve to die for being so reckless anyway). Organized and well-timed cavalry charges can be effective, though. Just like they should.
The cover exists, you just have to trust your teammates. Any shielder with a postive EQ will stick with the shieldwall.
What makes you think open maps are easier for cav ? When the map is open, people naturally tend to stick together and protect each other with shieldwalls and pikes. Try attacking a shieldwall protected by 4 pikes as a cav. Good luck. Only very bad players die to lone cav in those situations (those 2 handers that voluntary go away from teammates to try their luck against a lancer deserve to die for being so reckless anyway). Organized and well-timed cavalry charges can be effective, though. Just like they should.
The cover exists, you just have to trust your teammates. Any shielder with a postive EQ will stick with the shieldwall.
you seem to forget that a piker can only protect you from one direction. Cav act more like wolves: surround and attack at all sides.
Open maps: MUCH easier for cav. Just look at the maps when everyone starts bringing out their horses: its not close corners maps.
You are talking from a nerf cav pov.
No, I am really not. Each map should have sections which all classes can flourish. A map with no room for cav to get through would be unbalanced because it punishes a class too hard. A map with zero cover would punish all 2hers. Open plains maps are bad design.
Take field by the river. Its a great map, which offers both cover and room for cav to roam. Its a balanced map. Random plains maps on the other hand were the most disliked maps in both native and crpg.
No, I am really not. Each map should have sections which all classes can flourish. A map with no room for cav to get through would be unbalanced because it punishes a class too hard. A map with zero cover would punish all 2hers. Open plains maps are bad design.
Take field by the river. Its a great map, which offers both cover and room for cav to roam. Its a balanced map. Random plains maps on the other hand were the most disliked maps in both native and crpg.
Until people played on it tactically and then there was demand for more open plains immediately after :S
Yet most maps in cRPG don't provide equal opportunities :lol:
And with teamwork those maps are fun, as just about everyone [1]has said. Except for the usual people who think cav rampages on those maps. Which they really really don't.[2]
Recipe of open plains maps:
Spawn => Shieldwall => Archers/xbowmen shoot for 4 minutes, while cav of opposite teams often fight eachother on their own => Melee chaos for 50 seconds, where the one with most/any cav wins
I hate when random plains comes.
lolwut?
I'm not denying that. There are a ton of terrible maps in c-rpg.
1: False. A few people in this very small thread have said this.
2: They really do.
To quote someone who summed up open fields quite honestly
And the majority of people in that battle commented on it at the time and said they wanted more of those maps. That's 100 people right htere.
There have been a couple of other examples to. The night before there was a similar one with guess what...mass teamwork :rolleyes:
You cannot say cav doesent rampage on those maps, plains are cav maps and cav players dominate that battlefield and the scoreboard
Yet most maps in cRPG don't provide equal opportunities :lol:
And any map that promotes team work means that all classes flourish, because teamwork always results in a even distribution if you work together properly. As we saw in open plains. You're just making a random argument, but the evidence from what we've seen in battle, and what others have said is the complete opposite to what you are saying.
Again random plains aren't open plains. And like I said, with the amount of clans we can easily promote team work. And with teamwork those maps are fun, as just about everyone has said. Except for the usual people who think cav rampages on those maps. Which they really really don't.
No, I am really not. Each map should have sections which all classes can flourish. A map with no room for cav to get through would be unbalanced because it punishes a class too hard. A map with zero cover would punish all 2hers. Open plains maps are bad design.
Take field by the river. Its a great map, which offers both cover and room for cav to roam. Its a balanced map. Random plains maps on the other hand were the most disliked maps in both native and crpg.
I didnt say there shouldnt be more open plain maps i said that if you think cav doesent rampage on those maps you are wrong, 30-3 scores and such are a common sight for cav on those maps
as i said before i agree with the 1 in 4 model
Furthermore, an organised foot team with archers, shields and pikes will rape any cav on that map.
Do you really believe that?
Say, 50 infantry (including pikemen, 2handers, shielder, archers and crossbowmen) would consitently beat 50 cavalry (including lancers and Horsearchers), in a completely open field?
Based on specifics, yes. He said "organized" team of shielders, archers, pikemen, etc. You didn't say organized cav. :)
It sounds great, but I wouldn't want the lance to bounce of someone either or decrease the power of horsemen too much.
Also; the reason that cavalry is so strong is because it has a different, ever increasing scaling power influenced by numbers.
Explenation
A single cav is no match for any equally skilled, equally lvled player with any class.
Let's say the cav has a potential power of 0.5
and the infantry of 1.0
= Infantry wins
Two cavalry players can use more teamwork than two infantry players
But still the infantry should be able to deal with it if they have a weapon of atleast some lenght
Single Cav power: 0.7
Total Cav power: 1.4
Single Infantry power: 1.1 (One of the infantry can block, while the other stabs -> Increases combat effectiveness but note that it doesn't increase teamplay as much as cav does)
Infantry power: 2.2
= Inf wins
Four cavalry against four infantry should mean death for the infantry, unless they are all equiped against horses (spears, long 2h etc.)
Single Cav power: 2.0 (Double that of a single inf - Note that cav has a great mobility, and can be in comparision to infantry anywhere it wants at any time, it can also feint charge, backstab, run away at any time etc.)
Total Cav power: 8.0
Single Infantry Power: 1.4 (Can make a round formation, but would require poking/stabbing weapons which only a limited number of players have)
Total Infantry power: 5.6
= Cav wins
And so forth...
The numbers are made up, but it should give you an idea.
If you don't believe me, try it.... Play 1 vs 1 play 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8
you will notice that the more players involved, the easier it will be for the cav.
Or join an organised big battle at native or any other mod and play with 60 cav vs 60 inf, the cav is going to win.
And yes it's still valid to test that in other mods, because it's not so much about the personal stats of the horseman,
it's about the great potential in teamwork and formations, which infantry can't use up to the same level.(click to show/hide)
Yes they would.
ofc there are different views of organised cav. If your view on disorganised cavalry is they charge in 1 by 1, then ofc the infantry wins. But i think in by far most situations the cavalry would win. One video kinda shows it, although the author claims its because they broke formation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ABQ1PPCNo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ABQ1PPCNo)
I don't think y'all can really understand how overwhelming a force of 50 cavalry can be. MaHud puts it in perspective:
Also:
What makes you so certain? You must have a lot of proff lying around :P
Maybe you simply don't like a map where you can't go rambo alone.
Actually, Seawied=Level 30 Cavalry Lancer. If anything, open maps are the one place where I can go rambo.
Thanks for playing though :wink:
Not against organised cavalry and infantry you can't.
Pubbies=unorganized 90% of the time. It does not matter how you slice it, pubbies will consistently be disorganized
Strategius is a different story.
and for the record: organized team with cavalry will beat an organized infantry with little or no cav on an open plains level field map. It is the best environment for cav. If you deny this, then there is absolutely no hope in debating with you. If you deny this simple fact, you are unequivocally wrong.
Pubbies=unorganized 90% of the time. It does not matter how you slice it, pubbies will consistently be disorganized
Strategius is a different story.
and for the record: organized team with cavalry will beat an organized infantry with little or no cav on an open plains level field map. It is the best environment for cav. If you deny this, then there is absolutely no hope in debating with you. If you deny this simple fact, you are unequivocally wrong.
1. It promotes teamwork. This morning on eu 1 we had an open plains map, completely flat, possibly the first I've ever seen in rotation. It also happens to be the first time in CRPG pubby that I've ever seen teamwork with 100 people. On both teams the infantry banded together, formed shield walls and slowly approached each other. The cavalry took up positions on the flanks and covered the infantry in the advance before finally charging eachother. It was well organised and what a real battle should feel like. Honestly the only thing that threw this off was the appearence of flags one round, so both teams had to charge the flags down.
2. Just blindly claiming that infantry teams will fail to win in the presence of cavalry just is wrong. If pikes can even deter the cav from attacks for maybe a minute and a half then the superior numbers in infantry will allow a smaller infantry body to be mobbed. From that point the cavalry wont be able to make any impact (as long as infantry stay tight).
-snip-Yes, cavalry in cRPG is super light compared to the native ones. They have a bit less armour and HP and players, but the main thing is that players do much more damage compared to native. This makes horses much more easy to squish.
Super light? Why should cRPG players take lighter horses than native players? By far most riders there was on rounceys, i see more people riding on much heavier horses in cRPG. And i don't think it would do that big a difference if they aimed for the riders. Did you notice how much cavalry that was still alive?
Okay, so much for discussing that part. Here's the point i'm slowly trying to get to: I'm afraid that having too many plain maps will make infantry obsolete, and cavalry OP. Every class should be equally able to perform successfully. If there's too many plain maps, people will find out cavalry is the easiest and the more cavalry your team has, the better.
Don't take too many random plains. 1 of 3 seems quite good though.
We already have a lot of town maps that favor infantry, a lot off hill maps that favor archers, but very few open field maps. So we all agree that we should get some more of them, yes?If you try to make the argument that there should be more maps that favor cavalry, you've got a losing battle on your hand. The pub play dynamics favor cavalry so heavily already, that players like GK_Chagan_Arslan, GK_Kerrigan, GK_jahboh, Fallen_Torben etc post 5:1 stats on most maps, even the ones that aren't especially cav friendly. Even on the worst cramped city maps they generally end up with positive stats.
If you try to make the argument that there should be more maps that favor cavalry, you've got a losing battle on your hand. The pub play dynamics favor cavalry so heavily already, that players like GK_Chagan_Arslan, GK_Kerrigan, GK_jahboh, Fallen_Torben etc post 5:1 stats on most maps, even the ones that aren't especially cav friendly. Even on the worst cramped city maps they generally end up with positive stats.first of all, those are probably THE best player in crpg. but there are also 2handers that almost always have a 5/1 k/d. and yes cav is the best class if you want to kill a lot of people.
Cavalry is overpowered by nature in unorganized battles. We don't need the maps to emphasize that.they are in unorganized maps, that's why we need more open maps where people are more likely to use tactics and organisation.
Wow things have kicked off :Pwhat about me? :((click to show/hide)
It is all theory but thats only because I have never seen a 50 cav vs 50 foot, additionally I'm making some assumptions but they are pretty fair assumptions. The video in native doesn't really make a particularly solid point as crpg has been altered so much and I doubt we'd see anywhere near that number of 'heavy' cav on the field as coursers, rounceys and arabian are by far the most common horses. It often comes down to the archers imo, in public servers ha (like jackiechan, tuonela) get away with far too much because people ignore them and refuse to shoot their horse, they then go on and rampage and everyone believes everyone did what they could :P
Attending to the clan match rules, it basically comes under the same idea that because the risen server doesn't allow archers then surely archers are the superior cav, or other server restrictions have been applied. I'd really like to see it properly tested, maybe put 20 cav vs 20 infantry and see how the two teams do but I have seen no evidence of this kind of test :S
Ok now Elerion,(click to show/hide)
I don't deny that these cavalry players get high scores and they do feed off disorganised play, but...
1. surely this is an encouragement for organised play, you will find that scores immediately drop when they come against a group of aware opponents
2. Its not just cav that top scoreboards we got players like Phyrex, cyber, george, dave UKR, etc from all classes who get high scores on all kind of maps getting high scores on supposedly cav biased maps.
Finally I'd like to say i don't think all maps should be open and that we havnt really classed open and because of this have missed a vital point. Open does not equal perfectly flat plains, we're looking at more like rolling hills. Now I think we can all agree that if it was a test of 50 cav vs 50 infantry and the infantry took even a slight hill, then the cav would find it pretty hard to get to the infantry without losing men to arrows / just general hazards of hill climbing near inf.
what about me? :(
Okay for 1 in 5 maps.
Since in the others 4 maps, there will probably be 1-2 flat maps with not much cover.
Okay for 1 in 5 maps.
Since in the others 4 maps, there will probably be 1-2 flat maps with not much cover.
Though i really hope i won't be playing in the same time as Gk, and then not in the other team, cause organized infantry doesn't do too well against an organized combo of ha and cav. :rolleyes:
Edit: Ramses. You're making assumptions as well. Posting a native video of 50vs50 (not even general infantry, just pikemen) shows nothing :| If this is to be tested, more open plains maps need to be put into the server on say a 'trial period' and we can see how it plays out. Otherwise it's people shouting it down, with equally as many assumptions as those who are supporting it. The fact is, the only properly open plains map I've played in cRPG, certainly for a few months, turned into a huge teamwork battle. If you're going by proof, then that's the proof we have. Not an assumption because there were 100 people there to see it. So put a few more in and we shall see who's 'assumptions' are right.
Attending to the clan match rules, it basically comes under the same idea that because the risen server doesn't allow archers then surely archers are the superior cav, or other server restrictions have been applied. I'd really like to see it properly tested, maybe put 20 cav vs 20 infantry and see how the two teams do but I have seen no evidence of this kind of test :S
Flat plains maps are interesting when they pop up once in a while, because you see forced coordination with shield walls and "formations" (also known as "Big clump of people behind shield wall").
The problem is that it just isn't fun for any length of time. Given balanced teams, the optimal strategy is to have your infantry remain stationary in a big pike studded shield wall formation, with archers in the middle. Moving that clump is discouraged, since it breaks up the formation, making you more vulnerable to enemy archers and cavalry.
The end result is nearly always like Gurnisson explains: Infantry sits on their ass for 4 minutes, while archers and cavalry work to achieve cavalry superiority against the opposing team, at which point the armies clash due to time limit, low ammo or boredom. In the ensuing chaos, the team with cavalry superiority is almost guaranteed to win, as they can weave back and forth through the broken lines picking off enemy infantry.
As cavalry, this series of events is exciting. They get to start out doing cavalry duels and trying to identify weak spots in enemy formations. Towards the end, they get to run rampant in broken lines of enemy infantry. As infantry, it's about as much fun as watching paint dry. Once the initial excitement of "Woo, formations!" wears off, you're just sitting on your ass for 4 minutes watching other people play the game, before partaking in a short chaotic melee that ultimately isn't even that crucial.
Even ignoring the obvious balance problems if one team gets more/better cavalry (in which case they're almost guaranteed to win), flat plains maps just aren't fun in the long run.
Disclaimer: I've played such maps as lancer, as shielder and as archer. Only the lancer had fun after a couple of rounds. (But indeed: The lancer had a ton of fun.)
The variety we should strive to have in our maps should be in-map variety, like Sieweed explains. Maps that are mirrored and allow all types of players to succeed. In my eyes the best example of this is THIS MAP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU_urJ2R8Ng). It is mirrored, and has well suited fighting positions for all styles of play. It has favorable positions that are worth fighting to reach, but aren't unbreakable once attained. The deciding factor is the sum of all the team's strengths, not only cavalry (or archers, or melee infantry).
1.Stop saying infantry Ramses. They aren't infantry. They are pikemen in that video. Put a mixed group of shielders, archers, 2h and pike men and do the same and then you have an argument.
2. The problem is the proper material can't be gained because there aren't any maps. I have the proper material from the one map we played. And there's a thread with other witnesses to attest to it. The only way to 'test' it is to put more maps in rotation in the first place. Thus nullifying your argument.
3. 100 people saying something is more relevant than posting a native video with pikemen and not infantry.
4. Edit: Also your 50vs50 point is just plain irrelevant because never in public would you get a battle that is pure 50vs50 infantry to cav. So your point makes little sense in the context of adding more open plains maps. The argument is irrelevant and so should be stopped here. It's taking away from the purpose of the thread.
Ofc it isn't like the infantry you see in cRPG, but thats not the point. The point is, this video shows massive cavalry is very strong, since they can beat a force of 50 pikemen without problems. And i did bring other arguments to show why massive numbers of cavalry is overpowered.
1. I disagree, but i don't think we'll agree on that. Just leave it.
2. Maybe you should have collected some material and showed us to back up what you're saying, instead of just talking. And, maybe i'm just slow, but what thread are you talking about that nullified my argument? Please quote the important points here. Finally, i would love to see your material :D
3. Where are these 100 people? And again, i disagree.
4. Let me cut it out for you: I raised the situation to show that massive numbers of cavalry beat massive numbers of infantry, with little matter to skill and organization.
Imagine this situation if you need something that's more realistic in cRPG: 2 teams, both of 50 players. One team has 40 cavalry, the other one has 10. I still believe the team with 40 cavalry will win alot easier than the team with 10, no matter how much the infantry organizes.
2. Maybe you should have collected some material and showed us to back up what you're saying, instead of just talking. And, maybe i'm just slow, but what thread are you talking about that nullified my argument? Please quote the important points here. Finally, i would love to see your material :D
Which is why we should watch out with having too many random plains, since then everyone but the most dedicated infantrymen will be riding around.
Here's the point i'm slowly trying to get to: I'm afraid that having too many plain maps will make infantry obsolete, and cavalry OP. Every class should be equally able to perform successfully. If there's too many plain maps, people will find out cavalry is the easiest and the more cavalry your team has, the better.
The majority of builds in cRPG are infantry based.
Don't take too many random plains. 1 of 3 seems quite good though.
I'm not arguing to nerf cavalry, my point remains the same: Too many random plains results in cavalry being overpowered, which results in an increasing number of cavalry.
There is a (another) difference between us Overdriven:
You state this as if they won't ever change. I'm pretty sure if we had 24/7 random plains you would see the majority of players turning into cavalry, given enough time. Players adapt, as far as i can see.
And one of the funniest things you don't seem to see:
I've been agreeing with you almost from the beginning. I want map variation as well, i'm just advising against too many random plains maps, since they are unbalanced towards cavalry.
Furthermore, an organised foot team with archers, shields and pikes will rape any cav on that map.
What i'm stating is that massive amounts of cavalry is overpowered on random plains. Thats what all my examples, the video and the arguments have been about. BUT i'm up for having the occasional random plains, more than what we have now. I like the OP suggestion of 1 out of 4 maps. Its a nice challenge and usually cavalry will be balanced anyway.
Its a statement like this that can't stop me:
Sorry if i took things a bit too far.
I'm not arguing for 1 in 2 maps being open plains :lol: I said maybe 1-4 as a basic suggestion. But that could vary and honestly I don't see that as unreasonable. Certainly with 4 maps in rotation, you are likely to get an infantry map in there, so why shouldn't there be an open plains map?Because we all know this game is about manly heroic sword duels in congested maps done over and over to the point of nausea (nord town makes me throw up...many of those other overplayed maps make me sick too (don't know the names)). I quit another game I used to play because every time I went to play (really not exaggerating) they were playing THE SAME overplayed mind numbing repetitive congested urban map. One way to ruin a game is play the same maps OVER AND OVER. But you can't argue with some people. Some don't want diversity.
Infantry rampages on those maps, so why shouldn't there be a map that swings in cavalry's favour?
Because we all know this game is about manly heroic sword duels in congested maps done over and over to the point of nausea (nord town makes me throw up...many of those other overplayed maps make me sick too (don't know the names)). I quit another game I used to play because every time I went to play (really not exaggerating) they were playing THE SAME overplayed mind numbing repetitive congested urban map. One way to ruin a game is play the same maps OVER AND OVER. But you can't argue with some people. Some don't want diversity.De_Dust2 anyone?
Because we all know this game is about manly heroic sword duels in congested maps done over and over to the point of nausea (nord town makes me throw up...many of those other overplayed maps make me sick too (don't know the names)). I quit another game I used to play because every time I went to play (really not exaggerating) they were playing THE SAME overplayed mind numbing repetitive congested urban map. One way to ruin a game is play the same maps OVER AND OVER. But you can't argue with some people. Some don't want diversity.
The problem with those native city maps is that they were designed with much smaller player counts in mind.
but it is also true that in a lot of infantrie favored maps, cav can't even play and in cav favored maps all classes can play how they should be playedExactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what I was thinking.thank you!
+1 for you Berethorn. :D
Looking at those posts stating 'no'
They're mostly NA players, being too paranoid and conscious about personal kill counts instead of overall immersion and teamwork victories.
I'd like to participate such large scale battle instead of some street brawls, and if those organized battles occur more frequent in flat, open plains, then I have my vote for Yes, more open plain maps.
actually, NA players are probably saying "no" because we have enough cav friendly maps as is.
Looking at those posts stating 'no'
They're mostly NA players, being too paranoid and conscious about personal kill counts instead of overall immersion and teamwork victories.
I'd like to participate such large scale battle instead of some street brawls, and if those organized battles occur more frequent in flat, open plains, then I have my vote for Yes, more open plain maps.
Anyone noticed that people are voting for more regular open plains? :D
It does represent the proportion of cav player, yesterday on percores server we had more cav player than melee !!!
If you want flat cav map go play on the shogunate server if it's still there, it's only flat cav map.
Reroling cav next gen on my archer and melee, tired of playing pikeman all the time or shooting mainly horses.
Open plains is watching your team getting buttfucked by cav, in despair. No more of that, if people don't suddenly get smarter and follow orders, like sticking together, to actually get decent battles out of it. As of now, plains is shit, but they shouldn't be.if there are more plains, people will work together more because then they will see that it makes sence to do teamwork because there are more plains :wink:
if there are more plains, people will work together more because then they will see that it makes sence to do teamwork because there are more plains :wink:
The new desert map with some low hills, provide absolutely NO cover for infantry. You have the choice between getting rolled over by cav, or pinned down by range. Or ganked by infantry, if you're one of the few spear+shield man.
Just add some trees, and i'll be fine with it, but NO cover sucks.
one might think that member of caravan guild knows how the desert looks like :P
as for cover how about shield wall or deploying siege shields?
What if 1H carried spears... :idea:
I feel like giving this thread a bump as it has been an extremely long time since I have seen any sort of teamwork / formation structure of an entire team on a public server. We used to get it on the rare occasion but with all these village maps, rambo tactics are encouraged and actual organisation is barely rewarded.This.
The best we see atm is clumped infantry trains. We used to have shield walls, cavalry lines and skirmisher groups.
This.
Even though to be honest it is sorta funny that all cav players are arguing that you need open flat maps for teamwork. :P