I get what you are saying. In general I am talking about all around ability. It costs less points for a 2h cav hero than it does 1h cav --- with a shield. Smoothrich none of those 1hers compare to a morningstar. Also arabian cav sword is pretty shit on the ground , so it should be stronger from horseback, compared to all the other ones that are more balanced. It is an all around shit 1h weapon for a good melee player. Morningstar on the other hand just simply fucking rapes. Just wear decent armor and you are fine. Now you see as if morningstars were not already the strongest weapon of any kind from horseback they went ahead and added and 2h long iron mace you can use from horseback. Mw it does 35b with knockdown, shit is cray. Also those 2h axes from horseback do a fuck ton more damage than any 1her can do from horseback. I am not saying 2h cav needs nerfed but im saying it definitely has more powerful weapons from horseback to use, if no one can see that, then they are fucking blind...
Yeah I agree on most of that, but the thing is even 50 cut weapons that are 2handers end up doing just the same or slightly more damage than an Arabian Cavalry Sword, which just seems a little crazy to me.
I agree the best part of 2hand cav is that it frees up more stat points though since you don't need shield and can be a better infantry player, but this matters less once you get to super high levels which a lot of players are.
Long iron mace being usable on horseback is fucking retarded, though. Way better infantry weapon than those bardiches and axes in 2hand class. Need 2 get me one of those.
Honestly I think cav balance is pretty good and I've played the fuck out of all of them, but shields on horseback blocking attacks from behind and below the shield has been and still is really stupid and annoying.
And the ACS is really, really strong. NA strat battles almost never had them but EU always did and they hit so hard, you can 1-2 shot people in plate just like a morningstar on top of having way more reach. They aren't bad in melee either (against bads, not good duels) if you just abuse the monster right swing of it either, or overhead in ganks to killsteal.
I think if we can have variable lance angle based on length for polearms, lancer cav aren't completely hopeless if they get stuck/stopped by enemy cav. They can switch to a shorter polearm while dropping their lance. I think lancers have it easier against 1h cav head on, it's only risky if the horse can tank the hit and you miss stunning the rider. Shorter polearms would also be more adept at archer hunting since you have better precision with your stab.
I think 2h cav has better power for less speed. The best 2h cav weapons can still be used with a shield and sheathed appropriately. I can't really see how 1h cav is that much better than 2h cav and vice versa.
Lance angle doesn't need to be changed, I'd say. Its really fucking strong and effective just the way it is. You buff lances anymore and you will just get an obnoxious fucking swarm of heavy cav with +3 heavy lances lolthrusting and couching everyone which is almost as obnoxious as stacked ranged. Good lancers already can handle CQC with other horses by looking up and pikewiggling the lance down, or avoid that entirely by actually knowing how to ride. Besides, we all know cav tend to ignore other cav and just gank infantry all day, and the lance is easily the best at that (at least against aware targets).
2hand cav doesn't really have better power though if it works like I think. The morningstar is probably the hardest hitting 2hander from horseback and every 1hander just uses those with a shield as a 1hander anyways and from what I can tell the damage is the same as using it with no shield in 2hander mode.
I think the only real advantage 2hand cav has over 1hand cav is that you get to be a baller 2hander when you get dismounted and can rack up kills easier in a chaotic situation surrounded by enemies.
Poll