Cavalry stuff

[Overdriven]

(click to show/hide)

I'll do this point by point.

1) Yeah, that was an opening statement. The rest of the post attempts to explain why. Also, class comparison isn't a particularly valid way to argue this, since cav aren't retarded enough to try to fight pikemen or foot archers alone. They just run away and go kill other people (I know I do). Horse archers are a slightly different situation - yeah, as long as they have arrows and aren't retarded, they'll beat other cav.

2) cRPG isn't an organised battle. Most players on any given map are not in clans. cRPG should definitely not be balanced by letting good players fight each other. 'Bad' players (new players or players who cba to dedicate the time to getting more skilled) should be able to have fun too.
Also I don't understand what you mean about life being balanced like that, so I'll ignore it.

3) Yes, true. The ability to have a pike as part of your standard loadout (for everyone) also kept cav in check. Also, I never mentioned anything about HA being able/not able to counter other cav. And as I said before, ranged do fine against cav, I agree.

4) Yeah, true, I didn't distinguish between types of cav. As I said at the end of the OP, none of it addresses the issues of weapon type on horseback (lance cav/1hand&shield cav/HA/2hand cav/xbow cav/jav cav). HA and melee cav are different, but they all share something in common - they use a horse. And my suggestions were all horse related.
As for cavalry being underdogs on foot, I don't see how its obviously true. I do fine as infantry. I put 7 points into riding - what else would I have put them in? Ironflesh? Or converted a few for an extra point somewhere? Sure, I'm very slightly at a disadvantage vs someone with more ironflesh, but all that means is I have to block better.
Most (if not all) of the top cavalry players do very well as infantry too.

5) Well, no. You can't say that for any class. The problem is that you don't have to be good at cav to get very high scores (until a good cav comes along and out-lances you). The only other classes I've seen able to sometimes match cavalry kills are 2handers or polearms (mainly using long polearms or one of those silly greatswords). And that doesn't happen often, and usually only for good players.
And once again, cRPG shouldn't be only balanced around the best players. It should aim for a situation where every class is fairly difficult and requires a level of skill to do well. Cavalry doesn't do that at the moment.

Edit: sorry, you edited The numbers refer to your points, not your numbered replies.

1. It's up to the infantry to adequately position themselves to catch the cavalry off guard. The same way cavalry positions itself for the best lance kill ect. If the infantry aren't smart enough to do this then they deserve to die. Having a couple of good pikemen or archers on a team when fighting cavalry makes a huge difference. Because they actually dedicate themselves to the cause. Rather than most infantry who are just in it for themselves.

2. I accept your point here.

3. See my previous post for suggestions about the pike. I think it would make a big difference.

4. Cavalry are under dogs on foot. The only ones who aren't are 1h+shielder cav. An HA on foot, or a Lancer on foot both lack the athletics or wpf in other skills to fight effectively against dedicated melee men. I don't have any 1h wpf, I put it all in archery. So if I go down I'm rather screwed. Lancers will have all their wpf in polearm, if they are only carrying a lance it's quite hard to fight effectively on foot.

There is a big difference between dedicated cav players, and players who are playing a melee/cav build. That distinction need to be made because unless a dedicated cav player is very good, they suck on foot.

5. I can accept this fact, but how could that possibly be changed? I don't think any of your suggestions will work, as I countered in my other post (to which you haven't replied. Seems you only like replying to the rants). I think the answer lies in doing something to other classes, not in doing something to cavalry.

EDIT:

I also agree that needing 2 archers is not unreasonable. On most maps archers can easily have the upper hand. All they need is 3 arrows in a lot of horses, 1 for a headshot. It's rare that it takes more than 3-4 arrows to take a horse down. And that's really not a lot of shooting.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

(click to show/hide)

1. It's up to the infantry to adequately position themselves to catch the cavalry off guard. The same way cavalry positions itself for the best lance kill ect. If the infantry aren't smart enough to do this then they deserve to die. Having a couple of good pikemen or archers on a team when fighting cavalry makes a huge difference. Because they actually dedicate themselves to the cause. Rather than most infantry who are just in it for themselves.

2. I accept your point here.

3. See my previous post for suggestions about the pike. I think it would make a big difference.

4. Cavalry are under dogs on foot. The only ones who aren't are 1h+shielder cav. An HA on foot, or a Lancer on foot both lack the athletics or wpf in other skills to fight effectively against dedicated melee men. I don't have any 1h wpf, I put it all in archery. So if I go down I'm rather screwed. Lancers will have all their wpf in polearm, if they are only carrying a lance it's quite hard to fight effectively on foot.

There is a big difference between dedicated cav players, and players who are playing a melee/cav build. That distinction need to be made because unless a dedicated cav player is very good, they suck on foot.

5. I can accept this fact, but how could that possibly be changed? I don't think any of your suggestions will work, as I countered in my other post (to which you haven't replied. Seems you only like replying to the rants). I think the answer lies in doing something to other classes, not in doing something to cavalry.

4. Yes, HA are at a disadvantage on foot, true. They can perform as foot archers, but at a disadvantage compared to a foot archer. As for melee, all archers are disadvantaged in melee.
I don't really understand (and have never seen a case) why a lancer would only be carrying a lance... unless they want to not be able to fight dismounted? They can carry a lance, a shield, and a 1 slot polearm, or a lance, shield and 1hander, or a lance and a 2 slot polearm. Two of those mean they can put all their wpf into polearms and not be at any disadvantage in melee.
All melee cav can perform effectively as infantry, with no real disadvantage.

5. Yep, I haven't replied to your comments yet because for once they were actually quite sensible, and I'm still thinking about them. It's harder to reply instantly to valid criticisms.
As for doing something to cavalry, even disregarding its balance compared to other classes, I still think horses need some internal balance. Armoured horses need to be made worth the cost (or worth anything at all, though 1hand/shield cav with armoured horses are increasing), and some horses need to be differentiated (steppe/desert, warhorse/large warhorse, to a lesser extent rouncey/palfrey). I'd also like there to be a valid choice apart from the tier 4 horses.

[Overdriven]

(click to show/hide)

4. Yes, HA are at a disadvantage on foot, true. They can perform as foot archers, but at a disadvantage compared to a foot archer. As for melee, all archers are disadvantaged in melee.
I don't really understand (and have never seen a case) why a lancer would only be carrying a lance... unless they want to not be able to fight dismounted? They can carry a lance, a shield, and a 1 slot polearm, or a lance, shield and 1hander, or a lance and a 2 slot polearm. Two of those mean they can put all their wpf into polearms and not be at any disadvantage in melee.
All melee cav can perform effectively as infantry, with no real disadvantage.

Hmm most lancers I see do use dedicated lance. Nothing else. Lance and a shield and that's it. Mostly because a good lancer won't be downed off his horse for whatever reason. And if they are, it's generally considered that they'll just fight with a lance. Some I know use 1h, but they don't have any wpf in it.

[EponiCo]

Leed, Kerrigan - GLA
Torben - LHB
Some others with 2h, 1h, spears and other stuff.

[Overdriven]

Yes but those are some very good players. On the whole there aren't that many.

[tankmen]

I understand where people are coming from with cavalry being op, but a lot of cavalry are nothing without there horse, and even if they do decent on the ground they are in most cases lacking something that a pure 2h(spammer) has, in my case its 0 athletics *real knights walked ;)* and I'm pure 1h. In fact there are times I am on a map and completely know I cant beat one of the infantry on there unless I'm on my horse... either due to there footwork or just base skill. But its a village map and rather than get piked or shot to death or my personal favorite jump slashed I choose to walk with the peasants on foot.

I am a horse men so please don't shoot my horse in the leg and kill my class

[Bulzur]

One headshot to an armored horse isn't enough to take it down. I headshot a courser and it still needs another arrow before coming down.
And yes, i use a MW strong bow and bodkin arrows.   
Actually, the best gameplay to kill horses is definitely xbows. Since one xbow headshot can kill pretty much anything, and even a normal shot will still take 70% of the health of the horse. I'm afraid sometimes cavs don't do the difference between incoming bolts or arrows. Can't blame them, the range thing disapear sometimes after the impact, so no way to notice it.

The thing is, saying 3 arrows are enough for a horse is definitely true most of the times, but one lance thrust is also enough for all archers. Do you think an archer has enough time to shoot 3 arrows on a horse before the cav comes and kill it ? Seriously ? And... we can't shoot arrows AND block down. As an archer, i must pass at least 20% of my short lifespan using a melee weapon just to down block, doing nothing else. And once you see an archer using a melee weapon, just run in bumpslash or couch. :S

And.... horses and cav are not EASY to shoot down at medium distance. This is just an asumption because when 4 archers focus you, one hits. "Ah, i got hit by thoses filthy my old friends medium distance, nerf range !". But that's 20%.


Kerrigan is definitely the deadliest i encountered. Evading arrows pretty easily, insane speed on that courser, and if you shoot the horse, running at you with a GLA to chop your head off. o_O

(click to show/hide)

You already did Riddaren xD If i'm not mistaken.

Oh, and for all :
Difference between a strongbow foot archer and a strong bow HA ? : Riding and Horse archery (8)
Difference between a polearm cav and a polearm footman ? Riding only.

[Spawny]

4. Cavalry are under dogs on foot. The only ones who aren't are 1h+shielder cav. An HA on foot, or a Lancer on foot both lack the athletics or wpf in other skills to fight effectively against dedicated melee men. I don't have any 1h wpf, I put it all in archery. So if I go down I'm rather screwed. Lancers will have all their wpf in polearm, if they are only carrying a lance it's quite hard to fight effectively on foot.

There is a big difference between dedicated cav players, and players who are playing a melee/cav build. That distinction need to be made because unless a dedicated cav player is very good, they suck on foot.

Hmm most lancers I see do use dedicated lance. Nothing else. Lance and a shield and that's it. Mostly because a good lancer won't be downed off his horse for whatever reason. And if they are, it's generally considered that they'll just fight with a lance. Some I know use 1h, but they don't have any wpf in it.

I strongly disagree with melee/cav being at a large disadvantage compared to dedicated melee. You can basically pick a very common 18/18 build or the even more common 15/21 or 21/15 builds and ram all points from IF into riding. Take out 1 point in athletics or someting to get the max out of your riding skill if you have to.
The difference with dedicated melee when fighting on foot: some HP (which is not going to make a huge difference unless you're in full heavy armour) and maybe a point in athletics or shield skill depending on your melee choice.
Lancers who don't bring melee weapons are either very confident they won't get any use out of their secondary polearm (be it due to bad melee skills or they're sure their horse won't get killed) or they just don't have the gold to pay the upkeep.
The only good cav I know who hardly ever brings a melee weapon is Oberyn.

[MouthnHoof]

1. It's up to the infantry to adequately position themselves to catch the cavalry off guard. The same way cavalry positions itself for the best lance kill ect. If the infantry aren't smart enough to do this then they deserve to die. Having a couple of good pikemen or archers on a team when fighting cavalry makes a huge difference. Because they actually dedicate themselves to the cause. Rather than most infantry who are just in it for themselves.

4. Cavalry are under dogs on foot. The only ones who aren't are 1h+shielder cav. An HA on foot, or a Lancer on foot both lack the athletics or wpf in other skills to fight effectively against dedicated melee men. I don't have any 1h wpf, I put it all in archery. So if I go down I'm rather screwed. Lancers will have all their wpf in polearm, if they are only carrying a lance it's quite hard to fight effectively on foot.

#1 I call BS on that. A pike cannot attack cavalry, he is completely passive and need the cavalry player to be willing or stupid enough to get in range. I play support pike/polearm often and guess what, any cav that sees me facing in his general direction will simply ride around. The most I can do is keep them away from my pike radius till that moment when someone else engages me - archers (no shield), enemy infantry, another cav.

#4 I boldfaced the important part for you. Now, who's fault is that? You made a 1-dimensional min/max build, suck it up when you get to use your min side.

[Dezilagel]

#1 I call BS on that. A pike cannot attack cavalry, he is completely passive and need the cavalry player to be willing or stupid enough to get in range. I play support pike/polearm often and guess what, any cav that sees me facing in his general direction will simply ride around. The most I can do is keep them away from my pike radius till that moment when someone else engages me - archers (no shield), enemy infantry, another cav.

#4 I boldfaced the important part for you. Now, who's fault is that? You made a 1-dimensional min/max build, suck it up when you get to use your min side.

+1

And also:

HA. ARE. CAV.

Saying cav is balanced because HA can beat them is not a valid argumant.

More on topic:

The issue with cav is not that they lack counters, it's that they force upon entire teams a certain style of play, something no other class does. And killing diversity is not balance.

[Michael]

bro in european cav style chouhing is the main cus of the weigth of lances but in east lances have less weigth and they mostly used as thrusting

eastern lances were more spears than lances

that was what i suggested

light lance, normal lance, heavy lance - couchable only

war spear you can thrust

if they are really stacking str

From my experience 12 agi 4 riding sarranid horse 30 str 10 ps heavy lance 1 stab kill against everything
I had "only" 9 power strike and could kill everyone with a stab in the head

[Diavolo]

The issue with cav is not that they lack counters, it's that they force upon entire teams a certain style of play, something no other class does. And killing diversity is not balance.

The issue with archers is not that they lack counters, it's that they force upon entire teams a certain style of play, something no other class does. And killing diversity is not balance.

Archers force people to use shields, or to cover themselves from the arrows (behind houses or such). Cavalry forces infantry to stay close to an obstacle, go as a group, bring a pike, play archer/xbow/thrower or tell their archer/xbow/thrower friends to kill the horses.

As you can see, archers force people to do just as much with their playstyle than cavalry does. And with cavalry you have a lot of options to choose from to defend yourself.

I will probably get flamed to death by this post, since Im saying something "bad" about archers, but so be it. I only bring the truth.

[Dezilagel]

The issue with archers is not that they lack counters, it's that they force upon entire teams a certain style of play, something no other class does. And killing diversity is not balance.

Archers force people to use shields, or to cover themselves from the arrows (behind houses or such). Cavalry forces infantry to stay close to an obstacle, go as a group, bring a pike, play archer/xbow/thrower or tell their archer/xbow/thrower friends to kill the horses.

As you can see, archers force people to do just as much with their playstyle than cavalry does. And with cavalry you have a lot of options to choose from to defend yourself.

I will probably get flamed to death by this post, since Im saying something "bad" about archers, but so be it. I only bring the truth.

Archers : Do not force me to take a shield (it helps, but it's def not a req to fight archers, 2h can be considered "weak" vs them tho), allows me to pick whatever weapon I want to use, I can roam the map freely and ninja them, stick with the group and slug it out in a melee fest, or maybe aid my team in placing ladders or w/e, point is, I have a bunch of options. Same thing for my team, everyone and their playstyle can be effective.

Shielders: Do not force upon me a certain type of equipment, can be beat with any weapon (pure archers will have a harder time, but can atleast run away). I can feint them, crush them with a hammer, break their shields with an axe or whatever. I can flank, I can stick with the group, I can camp (for whatever reason...), - again a bunch of options. Same thing goes for my team, once again everyone and their playstyle can be effective.

2h/poles: I can beat them with any weapon of choice, (no class is really "weak" against them, shielders vs axes only plausible example). I can flank, stick with the group, camp, ninja etc... No playstyle restrictions. Same thing goes for the team, no special class or playstyle is needed (except for maybe skill? :p).

Cav then: Forces either me or teammates to use pikes for defence, force me/my team to use ranged to actually bring them down. Disallows major flanking or ninja, forces my team to stck together in a big blob, can not be ran from, encourages camping (boooring....+delay)... (Unsupported with pikes, infantry with shorter weapons are helpless, archers (non-roofcamping!), are weak to them due to lack of block and bump, 1h-shield cav is also very weak against lancers and HA...)

Don't get me wrong, I hate "friendly archers" just as much as you do, but atm they're quite balanced tbh

((lol forum))

[HarunYahya]

I totally disagree with you on this thread Bane.
I used to pay 1k gold every damn round to "repair" my sarranid horse when i was a cav.(I experienced my champ arabian warhorse got 1 hit killed by throwing dagger on its head btw.)
Considering increasing ranged spam these days,forcing cavalary to use shittier horses will make this game more imba.
They already forced lancers to equip lance or light lance with 175-180 cm long...they gave infantry 3 meters long pikes.
If you are a lancer / polearm build you cannot grab a shield and infantry weapon just in case your horse dies.So you have to choose between getting a shield and praying god to let your horse survive or getting an infantry weapon (GLA,LHB,Bec etc...) and praying god to let you survive on horse.
Afaik you use shield + morningstar on horse so changes on polearm builds may didn't effect your game experience.
Light horses die like cats in this game.If you throw a dagger to a horses head could it be insta kill ffs ? Horses are not cats but sadly in this game they die like cats...So if a light cav makes scores thats the retardness and unawareness of the enemy ranged units.With the speed bonus they can kill horses so easy.
I think slot system screwed the OP cav mechanics.They did quiet good,it is already hard to play as cav.It is always normal to get more kills in this situation because cav = mobile which gives the advantage to attack when they want and retreat if things go bad.If a cav not a retard he/shee will try to flank the enemy , attack them from the behind first wipe off the ranged.
Those tactics always work ;) That is why riders invented ! To surprise the enemy and change the course of the battle.
And increasing horses riding requirement and lances STR requirement doesn't seem logical to me.As a lancer , 21str 18 agi works best .
So it won't change anything =)

[EponiCo]

Yes but those are some very good players. On the whole there aren't that many.

This has nothing to do with player skill. As rider you are just going to miss x skill points from footman stats. That's the difference between 2, 3 levels at worst. HA are different since they have two skill centered on horses, the high attribute requirements and in melee also the lack of wpf.
Ofc, with horse cost you will have less money, but I've found it to be decently possible to maintain enough gear for when I loose the horse, at the time that happens shield users will have their shield broken, 2h will be hurt etc. anyway. And on a map where you can't use the horse (which was the original point), you can go in best melee gear.

Afaik you use shield + morningstar on horse so changes on polearm builds may didn't effect your game experience.

Actually, the slot system hit sword & board/2h cav the worst in retrospect. A pure lancer doesn't care, but a sword & board can't carry a lance just for fighting against cavalry. Ofc, they can just say screw you and buy a light crossbow.