Open Plains

[RamsesXXIIX]

Wow, lots of comments by the time i wake up Lets see if i can cover everything here: First off, Lorenzos first post.

(click to show/hide)

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

This long theoretical rundown is very fine n' all (There are some points i would dispute(Like the thing with archers shooting down 10 horses by the time the cavalry gets there), but theres a lot to address)

But really, i'm not very good at these long (rather pointless) theories if theres no proof attached. You're making a lot of assumptions, and i would like to see something backing these assumptions up.

Same goes for Overdriven: Theories are nice, but you won't convince me without some kind of proof. Also, why shouldn't cRPG players take heavy horses? I believe the cavalry will win even using rounceys.

2. Just blindly claiming that infantry teams will fail to win in the presence of cavalry just is wrong. If pikes can even deter the cav from attacks for maybe a minute and a half then the superior numbers in infantry will allow a smaller infantry body to be mobbed. From that point the cavalry wont be able to make any impact (as long as infantry stay tight).

Is it? I think the video shows the problem with massive numbers of cavalry = Nothing can beat them.

Here's some other things that might show cavalry is OP in massive numbers:

In clan matches, they are limited. Do you think thats for fun? Its a known issue among clans, you can't have too much cavalry.

In the big native servers, where people can change class immediately, most people change to cavalry when its on plains. Its pretty obvious there: You can go more rambo and get more kills by getting a horse.

(click to show/hide)

With the pikes being the new super-OP-nerf-everyone-use-thingy, I doubt that any cav formation can take out a double pike square with archers/xbow in the middle.

Don't forget that in cRPG, we have 300 reach pikes and the cavalry is super light compared to these guys. Furthermore, in the video the pikemen seem not aiming for riders but for horses. If someone is attacking you with a couched lance, the best thing to do is to kill the guy directly.

Super light? Why should cRPG players take lighter horses than native players? By far most riders there was on rounceys, i see more people riding on much heavier horses in cRPG. And i don't think it would do that big a difference if they aimed for the riders. Did you notice how much cavalry that was still alive?

Okay, so much for discussing that part. Here's the point i'm slowly trying to get to: I'm afraid that having too many plain maps will make infantry obsolete, and cavalry OP. Every class should be equally able to perform successfully. If there's too many plain maps, people will find out cavalry is the easiest and the more cavalry your team has, the better.

Don't take too many random plains. 1 of 3 seems quite good though.

[Jarlek]

-snip-

Super light? Why should cRPG players take lighter horses than native players? By far most riders there was on rounceys, i see more people riding on much heavier horses in cRPG. And i don't think it would do that big a difference if they aimed for the riders. Did you notice how much cavalry that was still alive?

Okay, so much for discussing that part. Here's the point i'm slowly trying to get to: I'm afraid that having too many plain maps will make infantry obsolete, and cavalry OP. Every class should be equally able to perform successfully. If there's too many plain maps, people will find out cavalry is the easiest and the more cavalry your team has, the better.

Don't take too many random plains. 1 of 3 seems quite good though.

Yes, cavalry in cRPG is super light compared to the native ones. They have a bit less armour and HP and players, but the main thing is that players do much more damage compared to native. This makes horses much more easy to squish.

Nobody wants us to have too many open plains maps. That's the whole point. We barely see them in 1 in 10 maps. The whole sugestion is not to have 1 in 2 maps a open field, but maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 4. We already have a lot of town maps that favor infantry, a lot off hill maps that favor archers, but very few open field maps. So we all agree that we should get some more of them, yes?

[Elerion]

We already have a lot of town maps that favor infantry, a lot off hill maps that favor archers, but very few open field maps. So we all agree that we should get some more of them, yes?

If you try to make the argument that there should be more maps that favor cavalry, you've got a losing battle on your hand. The pub play dynamics favor cavalry so heavily already, that players like GK_Chagan_Arslan, GK_Kerrigan, GK_jahboh, Fallen_Torben etc post 5:1 stats on most maps, even the ones that aren't especially cav friendly. Even on the worst cramped city maps they generally end up with positive stats.

Cavalry is overpowered by nature in unorganized battles. We don't need the maps to emphasize that.

[Glyph]

but the video shouldn't be used to judge this idea, because it's native so other stats and stuff and in the video it was 50 cav. vs 50 inf. , you will never see this in a battle. with teams of 50 there would be about 15 cav. so with a game of a 100 men there won't ever be 50 cav. and sutainly not one one team.
many of you think that if a team has 20 cav, it wins, but than the other team also has a number of cav, so that's already -5 cav, than there are the archers that's another -5 cav. than only 10 cav remain and you will only rarely see 20 cav in one team.

and Zapper +1!

If you try to make the argument that there should be more maps that favor cavalry, you've got a losing battle on your hand. The pub play dynamics favor cavalry so heavily already, that players like GK_Chagan_Arslan, GK_Kerrigan, GK_jahboh, Fallen_Torben etc post 5:1 stats on most maps, even the ones that aren't especially cav friendly. Even on the worst cramped city maps they generally end up with positive stats.

first of all, those are probably THE best player in crpg. but there are also 2handers that almost always have a 5/1 k/d. and yes cav is the best class if you want to kill a lot of people.

Cavalry is overpowered by nature in unorganized battles. We don't need the maps to emphasize that.

they are in unorganized maps, that's why we need more open maps where people are more likely to use tactics and organisation.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Wow things have kicked off

(click to show/hide)

ok

Wow, lots of comments by the time i wake up Lets see if i can cover everything here: First off, Lorenzos first post.

(click to show/hide)

This long theoretical rundown is very fine n' all (There are some points i would dispute(Like the thing with archers shooting down 10 horses by the time the cavalry gets there), but theres a lot to address)

But really, i'm not very good at these long (rather pointless) theories if theres no proof attached. You're making a lot of assumptions, and i would like to see something backing these assumptions up.

Same goes for Overdriven: Theories are nice, but you won't convince me without some kind of proof. Also, why shouldn't cRPG players take heavy horses? I believe the cavalry will win even using rounceys.

Is it? I think the video shows the problem with massive numbers of cavalry = Nothing can beat them.

Here's some other things that might show cavalry is OP in massive numbers:

In clan matches, they are limited. Do you think thats for fun? Its a known issue among clans, you can't have too much cavalry.

In the big native servers, where people can change class immediately, most people change to cavalry when its on plains. Its pretty obvious there: You can go more rambo and get more kills by getting a horse.

(click to show/hide)

Super light? Why should cRPG players take lighter horses than native players? By far most riders there was on rounceys, i see more people riding on much heavier horses in cRPG. And i don't think it would do that big a difference if they aimed for the riders. Did you notice how much cavalry that was still alive?

Okay, so much for discussing that part. Here's the point i'm slowly trying to get to: I'm afraid that having too many plain maps will make infantry obsolete, and cavalry OP. Every class should be equally able to perform successfully. If there's too many plain maps, people will find out cavalry is the easiest and the more cavalry your team has, the better.

Don't take too many random plains. 1 of 3 seems quite good though.

It is all theory but thats only because I have never seen a 50 cav vs 50 foot, additionally I'm making some assumptions but they are pretty fair assumptions. The video in native doesn't really make a particularly solid point as crpg has been altered so much and I doubt we'd see anywhere near that number of 'heavy' cav on the field as coursers, rounceys and arabian are by far the most common horses. It often comes down to the archers imo, in public servers ha (like jackiechan, tuonela) get away with far too much because people ignore them and refuse to shoot their horse, they then go on and rampage and everyone believes everyone did what they could

Attending to the clan match rules, it basically comes under the same idea that because the risen server doesn't allow archers then surely archers are the superior cav, or other server restrictions have been applied. I'd really like to see it properly tested, maybe put 20 cav vs 20 infantry and see how the two teams do but I have seen no evidence of this kind of test :S

Ok now Elerion,

(click to show/hide)

If you try to make the argument that there should be more maps that favor cavalry, you've got a losing battle on your hand. The pub play dynamics favor cavalry so heavily already, that players like GK_Chagan_Arslan, GK_Kerrigan, GK_jahboh, Fallen_Torben etc post 5:1 stats on most maps, even the ones that aren't especially cav friendly. Even on the worst cramped city maps they generally end up with positive stats.

Cavalry is overpowered by nature in unorganized battles. We don't need the maps to emphasize that.

I don't deny that these cavalry players get high scores and they do feed off disorganised play, but...

1. surely this is an encouragement for organised play, you will find that scores immediately drop when they come against a group of aware opponents

2. Its not just cav that top scoreboards we got players like Phyrex, cyber, george, dave UKR, etc from all classes who get high scores on all kind of maps getting high scores on supposedly cav biased maps.

Finally I'd like to say i don't think all maps should be open and that we havnt really classed open and because of this have missed a vital point. Open does not equal perfectly flat plains, we're looking at more like rolling hills. Now I think we can all agree that if it was a test of 50 cav vs 50 infantry and the infantry took even a slight hill, then the cav would find it pretty hard to get to the infantry without losing men to arrows / just general hazards of hill climbing near inf.

[Glyph]

Wow things have kicked off

(click to show/hide)

ok

It is all theory but thats only because I have never seen a 50 cav vs 50 foot, additionally I'm making some assumptions but they are pretty fair assumptions. The video in native doesn't really make a particularly solid point as crpg has been altered so much and I doubt we'd see anywhere near that number of 'heavy' cav on the field as coursers, rounceys and arabian are by far the most common horses. It often comes down to the archers imo, in public servers ha (like jackiechan, tuonela) get away with far too much because people ignore them and refuse to shoot their horse, they then go on and rampage and everyone believes everyone did what they could

Attending to the clan match rules, it basically comes under the same idea that because the risen server doesn't allow archers then surely archers are the superior cav, or other server restrictions have been applied. I'd really like to see it properly tested, maybe put 20 cav vs 20 infantry and see how the two teams do but I have seen no evidence of this kind of test :S

Ok now Elerion,

(click to show/hide)

I don't deny that these cavalry players get high scores and they do feed off disorganised play, but...

1. surely this is an encouragement for organised play, you will find that scores immediately drop when they come against a group of aware opponents

2. Its not just cav that top scoreboards we got players like Phyrex, cyber, george, dave UKR, etc from all classes who get high scores on all kind of maps getting high scores on supposedly cav biased maps.

Finally I'd like to say i don't think all maps should be open and that we havnt really classed open and because of this have missed a vital point. Open does not equal perfectly flat plains, we're looking at more like rolling hills. Now I think we can all agree that if it was a test of 50 cav vs 50 infantry and the infantry took even a slight hill, then the cav would find it pretty hard to get to the infantry without losing men to arrows / just general hazards of hill climbing near inf.

what about me?

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

what about me?

Sorry we just argued the same thing pretty much though sir so +1 for you

[Overdriven]

I'm not arguing for 1 in 2 maps being open plains I said maybe 1-4 as a basic suggestion. But that could vary and honestly I don't see that as unreasonable. Certainly with 4 maps in rotation, you are likely to get an infantry map in there, so why shouldn't there be an open plains map?

Infantry rampages on those maps, so why shouldn't there be a map that swings in cavalry's favour? Those are maps in which 2h and crossbowmen top the servers with often, a much higher k/d ratio than cav. You're quoting the best cav players, I can quote a whole load of the best infantry players from across the board that often get a better k/d than say Chagan.

These maps don't even swing in cav favour because of teamwork. Simply put though, I'm asking you why shouldn't there be variation? And saying 'cav will win those maps' isn't an answer. Cav have to play tons of maps on cRPG in tight streets ect where they don't actually do that well. Especially if you're a horse archer like me. So why shouldn't there be some variation? Again 1 in 2 is to much. I wouldn't want that many open plains maps. But just throw a few more in there at maybe 1-4, 1-5 hell even 1-6.

But the point is, maps like that are fun. Even if you don't rampage, even if everyone has relatively the same K/D. They are a lot funner to play than say Nord Town.

Edit: And as said before Elerion, most maps promote disorganised play. Hence why cav is able to rampage. It's easy to catch lots of dispersed infantry off guard. But open plains maps force infantry to band together and as such it nullifies the ability for cavalry to be able to do that.

Edit: Ramses. You're making assumptions as well. Posting a native video of 50vs50 (not even general infantry, just pikemen) shows nothing  If this is to be tested, more open plains maps need to be put into the server on say a 'trial period' and we can see how it plays out. Otherwise it's people shouting it down, with equally as many assumptions as those who are supporting it. The fact is, the only properly open plains map I've played in cRPG, certainly for a few months, turned into a huge teamwork battle. If you're going by proof, then that's the proof we have. Not an assumption because there were 100 people there to see it. So put a few more in and we shall see who's 'assumptions' are right.

[Bulzur]

Okay for 1 in 5 maps.
Since in the others 4 maps, there will probably be 1-2 flat maps with not much cover.

Though i really hope i won't be playing in the same time as Gk, and then not in the other team, cause organized infantry doesn't do too well against an organized combo of ha and cav. 

[Overdriven]

Okay for 1 in 5 maps.
Since in the others 4 maps, there will probably be 1-2 flat maps with not much cover.

Eh? What are you talking about? The other 4 maps are far more likely to have big hills to camp on and villages to equally camp in.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Okay for 1 in 5 maps.
Since in the others 4 maps, there will probably be 1-2 flat maps with not much cover.

Though i really hope i won't be playing in the same time as Gk, and then not in the other team, cause organized infantry doesn't do too well against an organized combo of ha and cav. 

Your fear of GK earns you +1 sir

[Glyph]

but it is also true that in a lot of infantrie favored maps, cav can't even play and in cav favored maps all classes can play how they should be played

[RamsesXXIIX]

More post 

But Lorenzo and Overdriven seems to argue for one thing: The video i posted doesn't show anything. The reasons for this are(As i can see) as follows:

cRPG has been altered from native.

Citations:

(click to show/hide)

Posting a native video of 50vs50 (not even general infantry, just pikemen) shows nothing

The video in native doesn't really make a particularly solid point as crpg has been altered so much and I doubt we'd see anywhere near that number of 'heavy' cav on the field as coursers, rounceys and arabian are by far the most common horses.

What are these changes you're speaking of exactly? I know there are some, but it seems like you know them all very good with numbers n'all. Care to share?

The main changes i see: (And thats only the main ones, there might be alot smaller)

1. Everyone has more money in general. That means heavier armor and better weapons for everyone. Shouldn't really change alot.
2. Infantry has longer and more damaging weapons. This might be valid to some degree, but i still don't think its enough to unbalance things. The cavalry also has access to bigger horses.
3. Ranged is slower and less damaging. This should work for both sides as well.
4. Slot systems makes it impossible for the infantry to carry alot of long polearms without sacrificing.

Personally, i don't think the changes are significant enough to balance the situation of 50 infantry versus 50 cavalry.

Ok, to Berethorns post:

I don't believe either that this video should be used as the only material to cover the subject, but since no one posts videos of these "invincible infantry" i'm reluctant to be convinced. What this movie proves to me is: Against massive numbers of cavalry in open field, infantry cannot win. Which is why we should watch out with having too many random plains, since then everyone but the most dedicated infantrymen will be riding around.

Finally, to some of the things Overdriven mentions:

Edit: Ramses. You're making assumptions as well. Posting a native video of 50vs50 (not even general infantry, just pikemen) shows nothing  If this is to be tested, more open plains maps need to be put into the server on say a 'trial period' and we can see how it plays out. Otherwise it's people shouting it down, with equally as many assumptions as those who are supporting it. The fact is, the only properly open plains map I've played in cRPG, certainly for a few months, turned into a huge teamwork battle. If you're going by proof, then that's the proof we have. Not an assumption because there were 100 people there to see it. So put a few more in and we shall see who's 'assumptions' are right.

Ofc i'm making assumptions. Nobody is objective, everyone is at least a little subjective. At least i got a video that shows something, but you just keep posting. Get some proper material to back up your case, you seem to be the one trying to convince people in this thread. Oh, and 100 people saying something doesn't make it true.

Edit:

Attending to the clan match rules, it basically comes under the same idea that because the risen server doesn't allow archers then surely archers are the superior cav, or other server restrictions have been applied. I'd really like to see it properly tested, maybe put 20 cav vs 20 infantry and see how the two teams do but I have seen no evidence of this kind of test :S

I don't understand the first part of this. Care to elaborate?

[Overdriven]

Stop saying infantry Ramses. They aren't infantry. They are pikemen in that video. Put a mixed group of shielders, archers, 2h and pike men and do the same and then you have an argument.

The problem is the proper material can't be gained because there aren't any maps. I have the proper material from the one map we played. And there's a thread with other witnesses to attest to it. The only way to 'test' it is to put more maps in rotation in the first place. Thus nullifying your argument.

100 people saying something is more relevant than posting a native video with pikemen and not infantry.

Edit: Also your 50vs50 point is just plain irrelevant because never in public would you get a battle that is pure 50vs50 infantry to cav. So your point makes little sense in the context of adding more open plains maps. The argument is irrelevant and so should be stopped here. It's taking away from the purpose of the thread.

[Kato]

Flat plains maps are interesting when they pop up once in a while, because you see forced coordination with shield walls and "formations" (also known as "Big clump of people behind shield wall").

The problem is that it just isn't fun for any length of time. Given balanced teams, the optimal strategy is to have your infantry remain stationary in a big pike studded shield wall formation, with archers in the middle. Moving that clump is discouraged, since it breaks up the formation, making you more vulnerable to enemy archers and cavalry.

The end result is nearly always like Gurnisson explains: Infantry sits on their ass for 4 minutes, while archers and cavalry work to achieve cavalry superiority against the opposing team, at which point the armies clash due to time limit, low ammo or boredom. In the ensuing chaos, the team with cavalry superiority is almost guaranteed to win, as they can weave back and forth through the broken lines picking off enemy infantry.

As cavalry, this series of events is exciting. They get to start out doing cavalry duels and trying to identify weak spots in enemy formations. Towards the end, they get to run rampant in broken lines of enemy infantry. As infantry, it's about as much fun as watching paint dry. Once the initial excitement of "Woo, formations!" wears off, you're just sitting on your ass for 4 minutes watching other people play the game, before partaking in a short chaotic melee that ultimately isn't even that crucial.


Even ignoring the obvious balance problems if one team gets more/better cavalry (in which case they're almost guaranteed to win), flat plains maps just aren't fun in the long run.

Disclaimer: I've played such maps as lancer, as shielder and as archer. Only the lancer had fun after a couple of rounds. (But indeed: The lancer had a ton of fun.)



The variety we should strive to have in our maps should be in-map variety, like Sieweed explains. Maps that are mirrored and allow all types of players to succeed. In my eyes the best example of this is THIS MAP. It is mirrored, and has well suited fighting positions for all styles of play. It has favorable positions that are worth fighting to reach, but aren't unbreakable once attained. The deciding factor is the sum of all the team's strengths, not only cavalry (or archers, or melee infantry).

This.

Its fun, from time to time (especially when play with my pikeman alt), but with bigger plain maps rotation can formation be boring too and i love teamplay.

I agree that heavy hilly maps are retarded campfest and flat maps are better.