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 =)
I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for the argument that lance cav now have to choose between a shield and a 2 slot polearm
They can use a lance, a staff, and a shield. Or no shield and a poleaxe or something instead. No-shield on cav just means you have to play differently, and lots of lancers do fine without it (Leed and Torben for example).
And no, I don't use shield on horseback, and never have.
Yes, horses die fast, especially the lighter ones. But then I'm not suggesting any kind of stat nerf for horses. And I don't want a lance str requirement increase.
Maybe you're right that the horse riding requirement increase won't change anything (its a point that Overdriven made as well a few pages back). With 18 agility you can have 6 riding, which gives you all the horses. Even 7 riding will still give you the ability to use nearly every weapon and every piece of armour.
This is fine, I think - playing cav shouldn't restrict you to a completely agi stacked build. I do wonder though, how many cav players actually go to 6-7 riding. Certainly I'd imagine all the top lancer players do. But I've seen people talk about their builds with 4 riding, so I dunno.
Anyway, I also saw someone mention that horses should have their tier or requirements changed according to use/effectiveness, not just bling.
Maybe:
1: Sumpter
3: Rouncey/Palfrey
4: Steppe/Desert
5: Warhorse/Large Warhorse/Destrier
6: Cataphract/Charger
7: Mamluk/Plated Charger/Courser/Arabian Warhorse
would be better. Together with stat changes to make armoured horses actually worth their requirements.
Also, about the cost. A 15% or 25% cost increase would reduce the amount of cavalry you see, there's no doubt. Cav players won't play cav on every map (which is fine imo - as I said, every cav except HA can function fine as infantry). And I don't really see the problem with cost currently - I make money as a cav player. Sure, I don't have millions, but I'm nowhere near bankrupt.
Cav will also choose lower tier horses more often to save money. As long as their stats are changed so there's a choice to be made, this is good I think. All I see are coursers and arabian warhorses.
I think that the solution is, like mentioned in an other thread, to reduce the charge ability of the horses. Then there will be less bumpslashing, and people are happy
That's the solution to removing 1hand/shield and 2hand cav from the game and forcing anyone who wants to play cav to be a lancer, yes.
Not to mention that most horses will rear whenever they hit a peasant.
Reducing the damage done by charge is only half the problem. Reduce the speed an manueverability of all horses except the high end ones and they will be more balanced. Steppe horses that turn on a dime and coursers that are faster than a ferrari need to go.
Yeah, reduce steppe horse's manoeuvre. Because that 38 speed stat, 85hp, and 14 armour will really make it worth buying once you reduce its limited ability to escape from faster horses (every other light horse except the sumpter) and ranged fire.
The tier 4 horse's stats are fine. Its just that their price and difficulty requirements do not in any way reflect their stats and worth when compared to other horses. They are (obviously) better than the lower tier horses, and far better than the higher tier ones too.
So buff armoured horses, shift some stats on the lighter horses for more variety and choice (and usefulness), increase cost and difficulty of tier 4 horses. Except maybe the destrier.
Most of the time you're not seeing a courser with 48 speed in battles. You're seeing a courser with 48 speed plus whatever bonus 6-7 riding gives it (and usually an heirloomed courser too). But you shouldn't change the stats on the assumption that everyone who uses it uses it heirloomed and with 6 riding.
Instead, alter the price and difficulty to reflect its stats (and potential stats).
