I got both, a dedicated lancer and a dedicated sword&board horseman. I play them with most likely the same efficiency.
Most likely?
Sword&board has the higher skill ceiling and feels stronger at low speed and against semi- or unaware groups.
Feels stronger? As opposed to "Is stronger"?
How exactly is a multi hit to kill attack stronger than a high probability 1/2 hit kill? Against an unaware opponent all other things being equal surely the attack with he highest probability of a 1 hit kill is stronger...
How is the sword better at low speed than the lance? Maybe against low or no armour targets but otherwise I believe the piercing damage trumps cutting damage, even when marginally lower. Against medium or heavy armour the lance is most certainly stronger at pretty much any speed on account of its armour piercing abilities.
It's even possible to kill several in one go. The bumpslash allows them to fight some aware targets better than the stab only lance cavalry, depending on the skill and arms of the victim. A bump-slash is alot easier to pull off than the bumbstab. On a related note the one-handed stab on horseback is surprisingly efficient. Furthermore the 1h+shield rider make half-decent footmen once dehorsed and don't have to change to a side weapon like lancers have to. Their disadvantage clearly is cav duel where the lancer have the crucial reach advantage.
What is stopping the lancer from taking a sidearm and being just as efficient when dehorsed? What about having to pull out a sidearm makes a disadvantage when dehorsed? You can change weapon whilst on the ground and be up standing with your sword out just the same as someone who has a 1h as their primary weapon.
Also I believe it is possible for any class to "kill several in one go". That it is possible for a sword and horseman to kill a few guys does not mean it is not easier for a lancer.
The bumpslash is a good advantage but a bump stab is far from impossible. However these bump attacks are very risky as they require you to get extremely close to your opponent. Furthermore both classes can utilise them so the point is? If it is that the sword and horseman can do it a bit more easily then what about all the many things the lancer can do more eaisly?
The lancer on the other hand profits the most from high speeds and the couch is a good tool to take out unaware tincans with one attack. However they don't have the "cadenz" that is needed to deal with a group of footmen quickly. A single unmounted target that seems unaware is easier and with less risk taken out because of the range of the lance that makes it harder for the footman to surprise the horseman with a fake. The 1h cavalry have to take higher risks here. However once the footman is aware and down-blocking the chance to kill him is rather low.
And a sword and horseman can deal with a group of footmen quickly? If anyone can do this it is surely the lancer with the unblockable couch attack which equalises any perceived easiness in down-blocking as opposed to side blocking. It is not like it is much harder to do a side block against a sword and horseman than it is to downblock against a lancer, of course it is somewhat easier, but try and block the couch.
I don't see the need to change anything here.
Really though it comes down to the two things I talked about earlier.
That lancers can stab you without worrying about the "sweetspots" that 1h and 2h users have to worry about. Being able to stab you properly and fully even when you are right next to them and the length of their weapon should make it near impossible.
Conversely I can be right next to a lancer and hitting him with my sideswing alongside him when we are both stationary. My attack can bounce off not even interrupting him despite my using the most powerful sword you can use on horseback and he then stabs me when I am but inches away from him and his lance is 180 length.
When I have gotten into this position I should be winning not dead!Secondly that they can attack with a good powerful speed bonus, with massive damage compared to all other melee weapons on horseback at all these
ridiculous angles. As opposed to me using my sword in the above described manner, as it should be used. The advantage of a sword is surely meant to be its versatility in close range and sideways attacks. This is not the case though.
So please if you think that things are fine as they are then please, I request you explain to me why:
1) it is that lances can ignore the sweetspots all other weapons are subject to and attack even though it should be impossible with such a long weapon at such close range.
2) it is that lances should have this ridiculous attack angle that negates the utility of swords on horseback.
I would like some answers because really these two things make
no sense to me.
---
And do not get me wrong, I can beat lancers a lot of the time, especially before the ridiculous throwing nerfs when I actually had an ace up my sleeve. This is not crying because I repeatedly get owned. But I have been playing this game forever, I know how sword and horse is played and I have a lot of tricks to pull out on these lancers. But when I make a good plan and some of this ridiculous stuff happens when I really could not have done anything better I am just left thinking. Why?