Open Plains

[Overdriven]

There have been a couple of other examples to. The night before there was a similar one with guess what...mass teamwork 

[Seawied]

There have been a couple of other examples to. The night before there was a similar one with guess what...mass teamwork 

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Overdriven]

Yet your evidence is also anecdotal The only way to test it is to put more open plains in and see what happens!

[Fluffy_Muffin]

You cannot say cav doesent rampage on those maps, plains are cav maps and cav players dominate that battlefield and the scoreboard

[Overdriven]

You cannot say cav doesent rampage on those maps, plains are cav maps and cav players dominate that battlefield and the scoreboard

You argued that more infantry should post. They did. Just seems like your struggling now. There are plenty of town maps where infantry dominate and cav is screwed. So why shouldn't there be a few more open plains maps?

[Fluffy_Muffin]

Yet most maps in cRPG don't provide equal opportunities

And any map that promotes team work means that all classes flourish, because teamwork always results in a even distribution if you work together properly. As we saw in open plains. You're just making a random argument, but the evidence from what we've seen in battle, and what others have said is the complete opposite to what you are saying.

Again random plains aren't open plains. And like I said, with the amount of clans we can easily promote team work. And with teamwork those maps are fun, as just about everyone has said. Except for the usual people who think cav rampages on those maps. Which they really really don't.

I didnt say there shouldnt be more open plain maps i said that if you think cav doesent rampage on those maps you are wrong, 30-3 scores and such are a common sight for cav on those maps

as i said before i agree with the 1 in 4 model

[Kafein]

No, I am really not. Each map should have sections which all classes can flourish. A map with no room for cav to get through would be unbalanced because it punishes a class too hard. A map with zero cover would punish all 2hers. Open plains maps are bad design.

Take field by the river. Its a great map, which offers both cover and room for cav to roam. Its a balanced map. Random plains maps on the other hand were the most disliked maps in both native and crpg.

You seem not willing to understand that absence of buildings exactly is what encourages teamwork, let's just take that example :

"A map with zero cover would punish all 2hers"

It's just plain false. There are shielders for a reason. Maybe you simply don't like a map where you can't go rambo alone.


Furthermore, maps with buildings can't offer a balanced experience. Field by the River is nearly the only example of a balanced map with buildings mostly because people, seeing buildings, instantly turn into lemmings and stop watching for cav. A few pikemen can save the day though. Furthermore, an organised foot team with archers, shields and pikes will rape any cav on that map. One building is enough for mass archer camping.

[Overdriven]

I didnt say there shouldnt be more open plain maps i said that if you think cav doesent rampage on those maps you are wrong, 30-3 scores and such are a common sight for cav on those maps

as i said before i agree with the 1 in 4 model

And I said that isn't true with teamwork. Which is easy on those maps. If 1 or 2 people take charge, sorted.

[Lizard_man]

i would love to see some more open plains maps, the village maps and such are really boring, it's always the same shit and it always seems to be the same maps over and over, battles should fought in open fields and such, there's way too many of the same kind of map, which alot are unbalanced, an open plains map every now and then would be great...

[RamsesXXIIX]

Furthermore, an organised foot team with archers, shields and pikes will rape any cav on that map.

Do you really believe that?

Say, 50 infantry (including pikemen, 2handers, shielder, archers and crossbowmen) would consitently beat 50 cavalry (including lancers and Horsearchers), in a completely open field?

[Reinhardt]

Do you really believe that?

Say, 50 infantry (including pikemen, 2handers, shielder, archers and crossbowmen) would consitently beat 50 cavalry (including lancers and Horsearchers), in a completely open field?

Based on specifics, yes. He said "organized" team of shielders, archers, pikemen, etc. You didn't say organized cav.

[Overdriven]

Yes they would. Even organised cav would struggle against a tight shield wall with pikes, crossbows ect. 2h not so important, maybe that's why people don't like it

[Overdriven]

Double post but...

Added a poll.

[RamsesXXIIX]

Based on specifics, yes. He said "organized" team of shielders, archers, pikemen, etc. You didn't say organized cav.

ofc there are different views of organised cav. If your view on disorganised cavalry is they charge in 1 by 1, then ofc the infantry wins. But i think in by far most situations the cavalry would win. One video kinda shows it, although the author claims  its because they broke formation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ABQ1PPCNo

I don't think y'all can really understand how overwhelming a force of 50 cavalry can be. MaHud puts it in perspective:

It sounds great, but I wouldn't want the lance to bounce of someone either or decrease the power of horsemen too much.

Also; the reason that cavalry is so strong is because it has a different, ever increasing scaling power influenced by numbers.

Explenation

A single cav is no match for any equally skilled, equally lvled player with any class.
Let's say the cav has a potential power of 0.5
and the infantry of 1.0
= Infantry wins

Two cavalry players can use more teamwork than two infantry players
But still the infantry should be able to deal with it if they have a weapon of atleast some lenght

Single Cav power: 0.7
Total Cav power: 1.4

Single Infantry power: 1.1 (One of the infantry can block, while the other stabs -> Increases combat effectiveness but note that it doesn't increase teamplay as much as cav does)
Infantry power: 2.2
= Inf wins

Four cavalry against four infantry should mean death for the infantry, unless they are all equiped against horses (spears, long 2h etc.)
Single Cav power: 2.0 (Double that of a single inf - Note that cav has a great mobility, and can be in comparision to infantry anywhere it wants at any time, it can also feint charge, backstab, run away at any time etc.)
Total Cav power: 8.0

Single Infantry Power: 1.4 (Can make a round formation, but would require poking/stabbing weapons which only a limited number of players have)
Total Infantry power: 5.6

= Cav wins

And so forth...

The numbers are made up, but it should give you an idea.

If you don't believe me, try it....  Play 1 vs 1 play 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8
 you will notice that the more players involved, the easier it will be for the cav.

Or join an organised big battle at native or any other mod and play with 60 cav vs 60 inf, the cav is going to win.

And yes it's still valid to test that in other mods, because it's not so much about the personal stats of the horseman,
 it's about the great potential in teamwork and formations, which infantry can't use up to the same level.

(click to show/hide)

Obviously if a single cav's stats are too strong, the infantry is fucked anyway
or
if a horse dies by 1 arrow the cav is fucked but those are extremes.

Also:

Yes they would.

What makes you so certain? You must have a lot of proff lying around 

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

The issue when playing cav is if you have large numbers and you fight against equal amounts of infantry / archers, any decent archer / xbow can kill an arabian horse (maybe the most used horse [considered the most op]) from a very safe distance in 2 good shots, the single factor being the rangers accuracy.

Say we take maybe 15 footmen of our 50 to be archers, by the time the cav even reaches the infantry to do all this fancy circling they've lost 10 horses (providing 1/3 shots miss and all the archers know to shoot the horses [they should as they are in an organised group afterall]). These cav can't really play any immediate part on their own so are for arguments sake neutralised.

Now for cav to take on this group they are going to need to do more than just charge straight into the footmen at once, so they are going to circle once again at as safe a distance as they can, maybe limiting the archers to an accuracy of 1/3 shots hitting. We can expect a further 5 horses to drop providing they all stay close enough to be an immediate concern while remaining a relatively safe distance from the bows. There is now 35 full health - wounded horsemen left to take on a group of 50 footmen.

The cav are now going to engage possibly with the aid of any dehorsed allies (these will be mopped up pretty fast as they will be too few to fix an entire group, will merely get swarmed and killed) . Providing you even have as few as 10 pikes, each one of those pikes should be able to catch at least one horsemen who will die on stopping due to being mobbed, however the horses will a few kills themselves, if they are lucky they can pick off 10 stragglers including if they have a banner of lucky clovers a pikeman.

We're now down to the remainder of horsemen circling / retreating / suiciding into pikes, they cant just keep attacking as a single charge will remove all the momentum and the cav will need to regroup. We now have 25 horsemen vs 40 infantry, some with bows, many with pikes. They can circle and charge all they like but the odds are not with them, they are relying on one thing to win and this is key. The infantry group with their new found success will split and break out of organisation to chase cav, and this is what causes infantry to die everytime... I have seen a group of footmen demolish a huge amount of cav, only for the few skilled cav to pick them off as they cockily split up, then people whine that cav are op