The current problems with cavalry (Poll)

[Vanular]

to clarify:  ...buffed manueverable horses in cav vs cav fights...  as you now use the movement of the horse to guid the lance a lot more in cav duels.  thats why the arab will always be the most dangerous  opponent if the rider is of same skill as you are.

Okay, I see you're referring to the maneuverability of horses. I was more referring to the maneuverability of the lance. I don't mind less maneuverable horses ... I do mind less maneuverable lances.

[MeevarTheMighty]

to clarify:  ...buffed manueverable horses in cav vs cav fights...  as you now use the movement of the horse to guid the lance a lot more in cav duels.  thats why the arab will always be the most dangerous  opponent if the rider is of same skill as you are.

I think that has always been the best horse trait for cav duels, but yes, it's a bit easier for arab cav to get a good position now (because there are less bad positions, where they risk the enemy lance), but on the other hand, the target is much, much less likely to participate in a cav duel against arab cav now. Cav of all shapes and sizes mostly turn their attention to infantry, because reduced lance angle has made it much easier to escape a cavalry fight and it's a waste of time trying to catch someone who doesn't want to fight and can almost certainly escape you.

The piece of equipment needs to be fun as well. Running around with a spear and shield with one attack direction and shield autoblock is pretty boring to be honest. And you need pretty much one guy wanting to play that boring style to every player playing cavalry that most people would agree is way more dynamic and fun.

I don't see why you think you have to be a hoplite to fend off cavalry. Most high end 2hers and poles are just as good as a pike (and where does shield come in?) and believe it or not, you don't have to auto-win cavalry to beat them, you can actually try to fight them fairly: Furthermore, cavalry is that boring style. 1 attack direction, straight ahead, can't even spinthrust... unless that was what you were saying. 

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

Yeah because in a game called Mount & Blade everyone should bow their heads to the mighty infantry.

FFS Its rage inducing how much complaining is going on.

Cav are not hard to deal with.

Another point is that cav often have resonable levels of team play. You see another dude on a horse and you know its a good idea to pair up or manuvre in a direction that is some what resiprical, play a distraction or hit from the rear.

I've been blown off my horse millions of times. My K/D ratio is horrible (too much time on NA) cav are not OP.

There is no problem.

[Black Wind]

Cavalry... Anyone using a heavy lance or couch lance won't have too much trouble with infantry, even 2h. I assume this, as if they thrust at the horses head, will a heavy lance outreach it? I'm not sure. A Danish Greatsword thrust has a long range, and so does a thrust, but the horses body from head to the rider is factored against the reach of the lance. This means that a well-averagely times two handed thrust will often rail a horse, rendering the often not-as-melee specialized rider to fight a build based for ground combat.

This is why Meevar and I believe that a non-retarded two-hand user, much less, a pole-arm user will have no trouble with a lancing cav.

tl;dr = thrusts timed well with greatswords/polearms will rail any cav user using a thrust lance, due to the 2h thrust animation, or the lancers effective range decrease if horse is struck in the head.

[Spawny]

Cavalry... Anyone using a heavy lance or couch lance won't have too much trouble with infantry, even 2h. I assume this, as if they thrust at the horses head, will a heavy lance outreach it? I'm not sure. A Danish Greatsword thrust has a long range, and so does a thrust, but the horses body from head to the rider is factored against the reach of the lance. This means that a well-averagely times two handed thrust will often rail a horse, rendering the often not-as-melee specialized rider to fight a build based for ground combat.

This is why Meevar and I believe that a non-retarded two-hand user, much less, a pole-arm user will have no trouble with a lancing cav.

tl;dr = thrusts timed well with greatswords/polearms will rail any cav user using a thrust lance, due to the 2h thrust animation, or the lancers effective range decrease if horse is struck in the head.

This. Aim for the head of the horse. Kill it in 1 strike, overhead strike the rider as he lies helpless on the floor besides you.

[Chagan_Arslan]

This. Aim for the head of the horse. Kill it in 1 strike, overhead strike the rider as he lies helpless on the floor besides you.

ah the view shared by all honorable infantrymen, they despise "cowardly" backstabs (but only from cav, backstabs by inf is ok) yet they go for a cheapshots like this

oh the irony ^^

[Penitent]

Cav are NOT good at all in head-on engagements.  Even charging an archer or a thrower head-on leaves me or my horse dead 1/3 of the time....in one hit.  Speed bonus, headshots...its not pretty.

Charging 2h or pole users head on is often suicide.

Only hope is charging 1h users head on.  So no, Cav are not good at head-on engagements.

Cav are good at 2 things: (1)attacking unaware opponents and (2)attacking opponents engaged with friendly forces. 

#2 is TEAM PLAY.  Its the best thing a cav can do for the team...stay near the friendly infantry block (if there is one) and charge into the enemy infantry from behind or the side and bump, slash, and lance the enemy that is trying to engage friendly infantry.  Cav is team play to work the best.

Sure, they don't have to team play, but that's true of any class.  Archers often go off on their own, and lots of good melee players go flank on their own as well.

The other thing that Cav is arguably good at is taking out other Cav.  Most would quote this as an example of team play, but I disagree.  Sometimes 2 groups of cav are just chasing each other around the map for the whole battle...and by the time one cav team wins, the infantry has slaughtered each other and the battle is already decided anyways.

Cav is not OP.  If played properly, they are totally a support class for the inf.  They can turn the tide of a battle this way...which is why its called MOUNT and Blade.  It's an important class!  Many players don't know how to use the speed of a horse though and just go off on their own...so its individual playstyle that determines if it is a team-work class or not.  To counteract the enemy cav all you need is teamwork to keep pikes guarding the sides or rear.

Stop trying to nerf everything!  Just bring archers back up to damage and everything is fine.

[CrazyCracka420]

Nice post.  Obvious they should revert archer nerf and leave the fucking game alone already...it's balanced enough.  You nerf something and it makes another class more powerful, well then obviously you have to nerf the more powerful class now.  And then that leads to an imbalance, oh better nerf that new imbalance.  Nerf-rpg at it's finest.

And my pet peeve of fellow cav is when they are off fighting cav the whole round instead of trying to help friendly infantry when engaged. 

To be the best team player as cav you should only run interference on other cav, you shouldn't get into a huge cav battle.  Your goal should always be to catch unsuspecting players and enemies engaged with your infantry.  You should really only engage other cavalry when necessary and mainly try to aim for the horses head (dismount the player) and then move along.  Don't get caught trying to kill the guy you just dismounted, he's no longer a threat to your team, there's more immediate concerns.

[Black Wind]

Nice post.  Obvious they should revert archer nerf and leave the fucking game alone already...it's balanced enough.

this

[Elmetiacos]

Cav isn't OP as such, not in the sense that when you look at the kills table you see a load of cav players with 30 kills and 3 deaths; it's just that the effect it has on the game is disruptive; it seems too many people have pikes and everyone is throwing away their crossbows...

[Penitent]

Cav isn't OP as such, not in the sense that when you look at the kills table you see a load of cav players with 30 kills and 3 deaths; it's just that the effect it has on the game is disruptive; it seems too many people have pikes and everyone is throwing away their crossbows...

Hmm...disruptive to what, exactly?

I've set up a poll in the Game Balance section to get more input on what I think can be a solution:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,25304.0.html

[Leshma]

Cav are fine.

[polkafranzi]

I want them to be forced to team-play. I see no other way to do that.

lol, I want 

[The_Bloody_Nine]

Infantry :

1. Have the lowest mobility and can find themselves unable to get out of an unfavorable situation.

Only read that, its plain wrong.

[Elmetiacos]

Hmm...disruptive to what, exactly?

I've set up a poll in the Game Balance section to get more input on what I think can be a solution:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,25304.0.html

Since ladders were taken away and ranged damage was dropped, this is a buff for cavalry on most maps. A major hazard for horses was getting shot and now not only do arrows and bolts do less damage, but with no more roofers, the opportunity to shoot at cav is reduced, too, unless it's a random steppe. Crossbow use is in decline because it's harder to find a safe place to reload. Rather than increasing ranged damage (which will probably hurt 2h and polearm infantry more than cav) I would suggest lowering the Health of horses.