Lancers - Observations, Conclusions and Solutions

Users who are viewing this thread

Evanovic

Knight at Arms
Hi all,

Like many I believe that Lancers are an imbalanced force on the MM battlefields, rather overpowered if I may say. But the situation is not dire; there need be only some small alterations to make them fit in to the game better.

This post will give an overview of my observations, conclusions and solutions to the Lancer problem.  :idea:

This will be done via process of: going through the Macro reasons as to why Lancers are overpowered, the Micro reasons to define their source of power and finally, some ideas as to how they can be changed for the better.

1. Macro Scale Overview:

The reality of the situation is this:

In Lancers vs Sword Cavalry: Lancers > Sword Cavalry
Vs Infantry : Lancers > Sword Cavalry
Risk when fired upon: Lancers = Sword Cavalry


Lancer comes out on top. They win more on average in the cavalry battles and they can take down infantry more easily than Sword Cavalry can. The argument that they are not overpowered because they can be shot by infantry is not strong because both Sword Cavalry and Lancers (and indeed Infantry) can be shot with similar results occurring; shooting is just a prerequisite.

2. Micro Scale Overview

Let us now look at the intricacies that cause Lancers to perform so well. I have created profiles of the strengths and weaknesses of Lancers compared to other Sword Cavalry.

Lancers’ profile:
 
Strengths:

-Fast/relatively fast horse; can attack at speed
-Decent weapon damage
-Large distance of attack
-Can couch the lance to produce an ‘insta-kill’

Weaknesses:

-Vulnerable to projectiles
-Vulnerable in close range melee

Other Cavalrys’ profile:

Strengths:
 
-Fast/relatively fast horse; can attack at speed
-Decent weapon damage
-Can use a Carbine for ranged attack (Dragoons only)

Weaknesses:
 
-Vulnerable to projectiles
-Vulnerable in close range melee
-Cannot reload on horseback (Not of Concern)
-Slow horses; cannot evade danger so easily (Dragoons only)

As is evident, both cavalry types have the same weaknesses and are mainly in competition regarding their strengths. We can omit any Dragoon-unique features from this, as their effects are not so persistent in battles and thus negligible in the grand scheme of things.

So how do the strengths compete? Who comes out on top? It’s Lancers. Let us compare each strength and see which one is better at it:

‘Fast/relatively fast horse; can attack at speed’ – Both are equal on this. (Lancers 1 – 1 Sword Cavalry)

‘Decent weapon damage’ – Both are equal on this. (Lancers 2 – 2 Sword Cavalry)

‘Large distance of attack’- A strength that only Lancers have. (Lancers 3 – 2 Sword Cavalry)

‘Can couch the lance to produce an ‘insta-kill’’-A feature of lances only. (Lancers 4 – 2 Sword Cavalry)


Final score: 4 – 2. And this exists on top of the prerequisite of equal threat from being shot and the Lancers’ better abilities versus Infantry.

3. Conclusions and Ideas
 
It’s these strength advantages that Lancers have that needs to be corrected, in order for more balanced gameplay.

Considering that this mod is also concerned with historical accuracy (as well as gameplay) it is important to make sure that Lancers are not altered contra to history too much, as well as to improve gameplay.

Here are some ideas as to how to go about this:

1. Reduce the damage of lances when in couch mode. Lances should at most inflict the same amount of damage in couch mode as in normal jab mode, opposed to an ‘insta-kill’. Couch would retain its ability to go through blocks and knock over infantry, thereby giving itself enough purpose to exist. Not only would this lessen Lancers’ strength against Infantry to more reasonable levels, but it would also mean couch manoeuvres would be more risky against Sword Cavalry, because of how dangerously close one must get in order to couch kill an enemy cavalryman or its horse.

2. Reduce the damage of the lance jab. This would force the Lancer to increase its frequency of attacks on both Infantry and Sword cavalry in order to get kills, moreover putting him in more risk-prone situations than before. This would be a suitable direct compromise for the range of attack advantage that a Lancer currently posses. In conclusion, Lancers have more attack range but have to attack more to get kills.

3. Prevent the lance from doing damage at short range. Similar to how you cannot do damage with a pike from too close a range, lances should not be able to do much damage either, because in reality, there would be lacking energy behind the lance before it pierced the enemy. This would give lancers the disadvantage in close range melee against Sword Cavalry. Swords are swung and swiped, there is room for that in a close up melee fights with other cavalry, but with a lance (let’s say a Lancer and Hussar are side by side) there is no room for gaining the impact needed to do damage and the Swordsman has a clear advantage. Finally there would be a situation where a Sword Cavalryman has an obvious advantage versus a Lancer.

4. Make Lances break after a certain amount of uses. This would not only be historically accurate, but it would also prevent Lancers being a persistent threat in the battle. Much like with  Dragoons’ shooting, Lancing would become only a phase in the battle and would not dominate so much as to be an imbalance.

With simple solutions like these I believe Lancers can become a balanced force in the game and still be relatively historically accurate and fun to use. They can still be the better cavalry, as historically I understand they were, but more to a level that gives other unit types a chance to compete.

Thanks for taking the time to read my observations, conclusions and ideas. I hope you can add your own ideas to this thread and perhaps critique mine. I am just happy to get this all out, opposed to leaking it in places I should not (like the ‘Suggestions’ thread :wink:) and pissing Vince off in doing so :!:  :wink:

Once again thanks,

Evan  :cool:

AKA: 13e_2Bat_Cpl_Evanovic
 
Lancers are no issue, a tip is when you pass the point, spear head the lance is rendered useless, and there are so many other tricks you can use, formations etc; this debate is waterthin there is nothing wrong with a lance.  Lancers breaking posibly is a agreeble thing, also there was issues with the lance breaking and getting stuck inside bodies of the ones implaed, but nothing else is need to balance it but take in mind, musket realism is diffrent, the guns are really accurate so it balances it's self out.
 
Re: Lancers - Debate
« Answer #9 : Today, 01:15:08 AM »

Trololo yeah close it! Stop this lancer arguement ****... So many people have done that  :razz:


As i said 1 hour ago...

I am a dragoon and i was a inf in the past. We have lancers in FK. It means we always make practice with them. And i m sure they are not over-powered. Yeah it is a little easier play with lance but it is easy to kill them. Yeah like you said: Shoot their horses. Block down. If they couch just try to stab or jump... [But i hate Polish lances. Yeah screw them! :grin: (joke) ]
 
Even though you should use teamwork to take down Lancers, if you happen to have no descent teammates nearby just block down, they soon get fed up and blunder in with the sword, allowing you to knock them and down and them stab them stab.

Failing that, blow them away at point blank range with a musket :grin:
 
Chamber their lances to piss and distract them. Then they'll rage-attack you either with couch or normal. Now is the time you should strike and kill 'em, at least this is what I do usually. Its very funny thou, chambering their lances constantly :mrgreen:
 
Lancers aren't really overpowered, average lancers aren't really dangerous but skilled players playing as lancers are almost impossible to kill if you're not lancer or if you don't shoot them down. Problem is with their too agile horses, where in cav duels they can indefinitely keep the sword cav from even getting to sword range, and pull the same thing up with inf.
Just giving all lancers medium horses should pretty much solve the problem.
 
Evanovic said:
‘Fast/relatively fast horse; can attack at speed’ – Both are equal on this. (Lancers 1 – 1 Sword Cavalry)

A hussar is much faster than a lancer.

Evanovic said:
‘Decent weapon damage’ – Both are equal on this. (Lancers 2 – 2 Sword Cavalry)
No. While both will kill when charging at full speed, stationary a lancer will do nothing (with the lance).

Evanovic said:
‘Large distance of attack’- A strength that only Lancers have. (Lancers 3 – 2 Sword Cavalry)
The Dragoon has a larger distance of attack.

Evanovic said:
‘Can couch the lance to produce an ‘insta-kill’’-A feature of lances only. (Lancers 4 – 2 Sword Cavalry)
Its not like you can really turn with couching.


Evanovic said:
1. Reduce the damage of lances when in couch mode. Lances should at most inflict the same amount of damage in couch mode as in normal jab mode, opposed to an ‘insta-kill’. Couch would retain its ability to go through blocks and knock over infantry, thereby giving itself enough purpose to exist. Not only would this lessen Lancers’ strength against Infantry to more reasonable levels, but it would also mean couch manoeuvres would be more risky against Sword Cavalry, because of how dangerously close one must get in order to couch kill an enemy cavalryman or its horse.
Every cav is going to "instakill" when charging. The reason for this is the speed bonus.

Evanovic said:
2. Reduce the damage of the lance jab. This would force the Lancer to increase its frequency of attacks on both Infantry and Sword cavalry in order to get kills, moreover putting him in more risk-prone situations than before. This would be a suitable direct compromise for the range of attack advantage that a Lancer currently posses. In conclusion, Lancers have more attack range but have to attack more to get kills.
Try using stationary. His damage is ridiculous.

Evanovic said:
3. Prevent the lance from doing damage at short range. Similar to how you cannot do damage with a pike from too close a range, lances should not be able to do much damage either, because in reality, there would be lacking energy behind the lance before it pierced the enemy. This would give lancers the disadvantage in close range melee against Sword Cavalry. Swords are swung and swiped, there is room for that in a close up melee fights with other cavalry, but with a lance (let’s say a Lancer and Hussar are side by side) there is no room for gaining the impact needed to do damage and the Swordsman has a clear advantage. Finally there would be a situation where a Sword Cavalryman has an obvious advantage versus a Lancer.
Thats already in.

Evanovic said:
4. Make Lances break after a certain amount of uses. This would not only be historically accurate, but it would also prevent Lancers being a persistent threat in the battle. Much like with  Dragoons’ shooting, Lancing would become only a phase in the battle and would not dominate so much as to be an imbalance.
I like this.
 
Leberecht Reinhold said:
Evanovic said:
‘Fast/relatively fast horse; can attack at speed’ – Both are equal on this. (Lancers 1 – 1 Sword Cavalry)

A hussar is much faster than a lancer.


Okay, this is true, but I wouldn't say it was that much faster to be much of a bonus.

Evanovic said:
‘Decent weapon damage’ – Both are equal on this. (Lancers 2 – 2 Sword Cavalry)
No. While both will kill when charging at full speed, stationary a lancer will do nothing (with the lance).

Well, on aggregate lance kills will be attainted at speed and these score measures are meant to be within those sorts of scales. Even as an infantry weapon a Lance can be swung and spun at speeds that give it decent attack. It is rare that a lance will ever be thrust in a completely strationary position.

Evanovic said:
‘Large distance of attack’- A strength that only Lancers have. (Lancers 3 – 2 Sword Cavalry)
The Dragoon has a larger distance of attack.

Evanovic said:
‘Can couch the lance to produce an ‘insta-kill’’-A feature of lances only. (Lancers 4 – 2 Sword Cavalry)
Its not like you can really turn with couching.

It's pretty hard for most players (inexperienced to medium experience) to avoid getting killed by couch. Also, in certain situations, especially in intense melee, couch can be almost impossible to avoid.

Evanovic said:
1. Reduce the damage of lances when in couch mode. Lances should at most inflict the same amount of damage in couch mode as in normal jab mode, opposed to an ‘insta-kill’. Couch would retain its ability to go through blocks and knock over infantry, thereby giving itself enough purpose to exist. Not only would this lessen Lancers’ strength against Infantry to more reasonable levels, but it would also mean couch manoeuvres would be more risky against Sword Cavalry, because of how dangerously close one must get in order to couch kill an enemy cavalryman or its horse.
Every cav is going to "instakill" when charging. The reason for this is the speed bonus.

Not true, in most cases Sword cav will not 'insta-kill' when charging, only the best players can achieve these and even then, it takes you into dangerous proximity of the player when you try these precise 'insta-kill' moves with sword cav, unlike with lancer.

Evanovic said:
2. Reduce the damage of the lance jab. This would force the Lancer to increase its frequency of attacks on both Infantry and Sword cavalry in order to get kills, moreover putting him in more risk-prone situations than before. This would be a suitable direct compromise for the range of attack advantage that a Lancer currently posses. In conclusion, Lancers have more attack range but have to attack more to get kills.
Try using stationary. His damage is ridiculous.
Stationary, as previosuly said, is not really relevant to the situations we are talking about, because of the rarity of any lancer being in a stationary position.

Evanovic said:
3. Prevent the lance from doing damage at short range. Similar to how you cannot do damage with a pike from too close a range, lances should not be able to do much damage either, because in reality, there would be lacking energy behind the lance before it pierced the enemy. This would give lancers the disadvantage in close range melee against Sword Cavalry. Swords are swung and swiped, there is room for that in a close up melee fights with other cavalry, but with a lance (let’s say a Lancer and Hussar are side by side) there is no room for gaining the impact needed to do damage and the Swordsman has a clear advantage. Finally there would be a situation where a Sword Cavalryman has an obvious advantage versus a Lancer.
Thats already in.
Not as well as it could be. There is still the ability to do ENOUGH damage to delay an enemy and provide for escape for the lancer. It may be impossible to achieve, with this engine, a no-damage hit without making the lance longer, which would then just amplify the range advantage and make them stronger.

Evanovic said:
4. Make Lances break after a certain amount of uses. This would not only be historically accurate, but it would also prevent Lancers being a persistent threat in the battle. Much like with  Dragoons’ shooting, Lancing would become only a phase in the battle and would not dominate so much as to be an imbalance.
I like this.
Although, I think it'd be sad not to be able to use the lance in later infantry combat, after being 'de-horsed'. It's my favourite weapon on foot.
 
I think you added an extra quote tag. Also, it would be nice if you add a spoiler, since its getting long.

Well, on aggregate lance kills will be attainted at speed and these score measures are meant to be within those sorts of scales. Even as an infantry weapon a Lance can be swung and spun at speeds that give it decent attack. It is rare that a lance will ever be thrust in a completely strationary position.

Not sure what you mean with the first line, but well, when your horse gets down its not rare at all being statioanary. Thing is, lancers also have a saber. Though they dont have as much 1h mastery, there is no big difference.

Also, you have to try really hard to not instakill with something at full speed. Swords included. Specially since right slash is nearly always a hit in the head.
 
Lancer's aren't that op, any decent player should know how to block down or dodge a couched lance and then shoot them in the back. Or if they aren't moving to the side, sidestep and stab before they can turn. Only thing that should be changed about them is the horse speed, which tends to make things harder when you have 5 lancers coming at you and you're on foot, but then again that wont be a problem if you have teammates with you.

Simple solution; lrn 2 play
 
This thread is an abomination!!!!

As an FK Lancer I can assure you that Lancers are not as OP as they are made out to be.

I personally will pick up a cav heavy sword if one can be found as I personally think heavy swords are far better for taking out infantry than a lance because with a sword you can hit from multiple angels compared to a lance which is kind of predictable. Also heavy cavalry have horses with more health compared to a lancers one and thus can take more bullets.

You mention how dragoons cant fire on horseback and I agree with you it is kind of retarded that they cant do this but you would have to take it up with Vincenzo on that.

These threads though are sad to see because there is not many cav regiments as it is and if cav get nerfed you might just find LB's with nothing but inf and Art which I think some would find rather boring.  :sad:

I can understand your frustration if you are just playing with randoms but if you play LB's you would find that with good communcation and decent teamates beside you, lancers would be less of a threat as well as all cav in general.

 
We are talking about Lancer Cavalry here, not when they are on foot, so drop that stationary argument.

And I honestly beg to differ on the 'Sword insta-kill' idea. It does not nearly as often as with lances with the average player, because Sword Cavalry die quicker and half the time do not strike lethal blows.

@ Akame, sword cavalry can be shot just as easily, therefore shooting does not pose any greater threat to lancers than to sword cavalry. There are lots of techniques talked about, but would you ever say that they were easier to execute with Sword Cavalry than with Lancers? I still see Lancers posing the greater threat, in each circumstance: vs inf or cav, and this is what needs to change a little.

Evan
 
well lancers are a bit cheap yes, and i think we are talking more of public battles then line battles right now, but i do agree that lancers do need a bit of a redone (this of course has been said many times) my strat with beating them is to wiat until they draw their swords or they couch their lance. when they do that you can go into their blind spot where they cant hit yu, and you can hit them.
Banzai!!! said:
This thread is an abomination!!!!

As an FK Lancer I can assure you that Lancers are not as OP as they are made out to be.

I personally will pick up a cav heavy sword if one can be found as I personally think heavy swords are far better for taking out infantry than a lance because with a sword you can hit from multiple angels compared to a lance which is kind of predictable. Also heavy cavalry have horses with more health compared to a lancers one and thus can take more bullets.

You mention how dragoons cant fire on horseback and I agree with you it is kind of retarded that they cant do this but you would have to take it up with Vincenzo on that.

These threads though are sad to see because there is not many cav regiments as it is and if cav get nerfed you might just find LB's with nothing but inf and Art which I think some would find rather boring.  :sad:

I can understand your frustration if you are just playing with randoms but if you play LB's you would find that with good communcation and decent teamates beside you, lancers would be less of a threat as well as all cav in general.

also well when you are a lancer you cna exactly confirm/ deny if it is OP can you?  :lol:
also heavy cav swords will only trump the lance while on foot and then the lancer can just draw the trusty light sword.
evan never said anything about fireing their gun on horseback was bad (and there is a reason on this that i wont get into to)
adn evan isnt saying to get rid of cav or lancers he is saying to make them less OP.(as the reasons stated above)
 
Oldplayer

I disagree I think a heavy cav can take down a lancer although I agree it's harder but not impossible but the key is horse movement which I wont go into. Also personally I prefer a heavy sword over my light sword but that is just a matter of taste for me im sure others would disagree but I just prefer the feel of it.

Also again I stress how cav aren't OP when you consider inf have guns. If your line isn't facing us when we charge well then that's the officers fault for not being aware of what's going on around him and I can assure you that if lancers (I stress "if" because it does not happen much) were to charge a line regiment head on with there guns aimed at us we would take alot of casualties whether it be dead riders or dead horses.

My point is that people should not blame the unit type for there failures/dieing alot but rather the officer commanding them or there own lack of skill.
 
I think alot of people are taking the arguments presented the wrong way. I believe that while there are techniques in fighting lancers in general one has to consider the implications of lancers not compared to infantry, since as many people have pointed out, they are not really overpowered compared to infantry in a linebattle situation. However, lancers do not compete for a spot with infantry, not directly atleast, they compete with sword armed cavalry for their spot, and I think that everyone agrees that all other things equal a lancer is quite a bit superior to a sword armed cavalry man, so from a logical point of view this removes the raison d'etre of sword armed cavalry if you are optimizing your team.

While it's true what Oposum says that it's quite easy for him, and people on his skill level, to kill lancers while being sword armed cavalry, this ignores the fact that not everybody can be Oposum. While the game obviously has to be balanced for the very top players it also has to be balanced for the large masses of the game who are avarage.
 
I would near on assure those wanting lancers nerfing have had difficulties fighting them ... this thread is the perfect example to show how to beat them and when to beat them

Few tips i'd personally give.

Hills/walls are you friends ... on a steep hill? no lancers is dumb enough to charge up it after you, so just made sure you don't get back stabbed, if against a wall you only have 180 degrees to look around (Warning standing right up against a wall will stop your lunge) if you have a friend all the better for defending.

ALL lances outrange bayonetes ... and I will assure you they do, a good lancer will charge at you and turn to their side, this is where they will get the most accurate range on you, and also outrange you. Simply solved by down blocking the incomming attack or if your smart enough his S and step back ... he/she'll miss. (Failing that chamber it)

Couched lance? move to his opposite side at the last minute and stab his horse ... the rest is easy as pie.

still having problems with lancers ... get in a group, get in some rocks, get behind a tree ... jsut make it as difficult as possible for that lancer to get a kill and they will back off.


Lancers (or any other class) have never been oped in my opinion, just played by better players.

However, lancers do not compete for a spot with infantry, not directly atleast, they compete with sword armed cavalry for their spot, and I think that everyone agrees that all other things equal a lancer is quite a bit superior to a sword armed cavalry man, so from a logical point of view this removes the raison d'etre of sword armed cavalry if you are optimizing your team.

Sorry but I disagree there ... 2 of the 52nd members when playing lancers do not use the lance, they prefer the sword, and are quite capable of using it to defeat lancers ... once again its nothing to do with power or weaponry but skilled use of whats given to you.

If your looking at the power of something you can't rule out how its played. A new player on foot WILL get beaten by a old player on lance point, an old player on foot will beat a new player on lancepoint. If the lancer was overpowered the lancer would win every time, but this is simply not the case. Using a lance still takes skill and i've seen it more than often used wrongly to the riders expense.

I think that would therefore mean the lancer is not OPed but put down the prowess of the player.
 
Going to copy-paste my last point/s from the last thread Y U CLOSE IT ?!?!?!?

Here's a little read for you.... taken from Wikipedia:

"The lancer (called ułan in Polish and Ulan in German) had become a common sight in almost every European, Ottoman and Indian army during this time, but with the exception of the Ottoman troops, they increasingly discarded the heavy armour to give greater freedom of movement in combat. The Polish "winged" lancers were amongst the last to abandon the armour in Europe. There was a widespread debate over the value of the lance in mounted combat during the 18th and 19th centuries and most armies had few lancer units by the beginning of the 19th century, however during the Napoleonic Wars lancers would be seen in many of the combatant nations as their qualities became clear. During the wars the Poles became a ready territory for recruitment by several armies, willingly or unwillingly, and served with distinction in most of these armies, most famously in Napoleon's French Imperial Guard as the 1er Regiment de Chevau-Legers-Lanciers de la Garde Impériale.
At Waterloo, French lances were "nearly three meters (about nine feet, ten inches) long, weighed three kilograms (about six pounds, ten ounces), and had a steel point on a wooden staff," according to historian Alessandro Barbero. He adds that they were "terrifyingly efficient." Commander of the French 1st Corps, 4th Division General Durutte, who saw the battle from the high ground in front of Papelotte, would write later, "I had never before realized the great superiority of the lance over the sword."[2]
In the Siege of Los Angeles, during war between Mexico and the United States, a company of Californio lancers temporarily recaptured the town, expelling a company of U.S. Marines.
Although the lance had its greatest impact in the charge, lancers were vulnerable against other cavalry, as the lance proved a clumsy and ineffective weapon (compared to the sabre) at close quarters. By the late 19th century, many cavalry regiments were composed of troopers with lances (as well as sabres or other secondary weapons) in the front rank and men with sabres in the second, the lances for the initial shock and sabres for the mêlée."


Taken from Napoleonistyka.com:

"Advantages and disadvantages of lance.
Lance was the most dangerous in the
first contact during line-vs-line combat.

Lance was the most dangerous in the first contact during line-vs-line combats. The long weapon allowed cavalrymen to wound or kill an enemy armed with shorter weapon first. Once the enemy had got past the point of the lance then the lancer was vulnerable.

General Jomini wrote that lance is the most aggressive weapon as one can simply outreach every opponent. He writes, "Much discussion has taken place about the proper manner of arming cavalry. The lance is the best arm for offensive purposes when a body of horsemen charge in line; for it enables them to strike an enemy who cannot reach them; but it is a very good plan to have a second rank ... armed with sabers, which are more easily handled than the lance in hand-to-hand fighting when the ranks become broken. It would be , perhaps, better still to support a charge of lancers by a detachment of hussars... the advantegeous use of lance depends upon the preservation of good order..."

Marshal Marmont was a warm advocate of the lance as a weapon for cavalry. He wrote, "The lance should be the principal arm and the saber an auxiliary arm."

Prussian officer von Marwitz ascribes absolute superiority to the lancer.
He goes so far as to maintain that, in a charge made in close order by a line armed with the saber against a line armed with the lance, it is immaterial whether in the former the men are armed with sabers or with feather-dusters.

There were however several disadvantages of the lance:
- the preservation of good order was a must for the lancers. It was however difficult to keep order during charge, as enemy fire and falling horses and men, stress and over-excitement, abandoned equipment, and trees, could put the riding men into disorder. It was one of the reasons why not every lancers charge was successful.
- in a melee where one has to parry blows from the left, right and rear and do it quickly the lance was too long and too heavy. In such situation many lancers discarded their weapons and fought with sabers. It happened in 1809 at Wagram where the Austrian uhlans threw away their lances after being attacked by Polish Guard Lighthorse (not yet armed with lances).

The deadliest enemies of lancers were:
other lancers
armored cuirassiers
and in certain situations the hussars"

(Heres a spoiler to the link)
(click to show/hide)

Now, as we can see, the lance is indeed a fine weapon. When used tactfully and with some skill, it is a great weapon. But whence looking at it from a view of a common soldier in a melee, we notice that it is very cumbersome. To throw around a couple meter long wood staff to block (Not to mention doing all this without stabbing your own horse) is a rather slow and tiring, also cumbersome, process. They should be slowed, and their damage should be mostly in their ability to couch, not thrust. They should also have some sort of randomizing process, as I've stated before. The read so far should of stapled into your mind the thought that not every person had a lance. It is rather OP to have a lancer with BOTH lance and saber. They should be randomized, with a 50/50 chance of getting either a lance or saber. Then, the regiment being a unit, could wage a battle depending on their current build of saber-to-lance ratio.


To make it known that I do like the lance as long as it is used tactfully, here is some more reading on the same page.

"Lancers in melee.
When the melee begins ... [the lancers are] lost when
opposed by any other cavalry armed with shorter arms

According to the Journal of Prussian 1st Leib Hussar Regiment, "When a lance-armed cavalry is charged home and when the melee begins, it is lost when opposed by any other cavalry armed with shorter arms. Proof for this is given by the attack of the regiment on the 2nd and 4th Polish Lancers at Dennewitz. Both regiments belonged to the cream of the French army. They were defeated easily, we took 10 officers and 120 others prisoner, the battlefield was covered with dead, and we had not a single serious casualty caused by lance stabs. The shorter cold steel arms are, the more secure and deadly. French cuirassier and dragoon swords are definitely too long, and maybe even our own sabres are."

BREAK IN STORY: Spearing gonna say sumtin'
As you may read soon, the argument will turn to "Well, a skilled cavalryman can use the lance in a melee just fine!"
There is a problem with this. The strategy requires the horse to exert much strength and energy on keeping itself moving and on agile footing for the benefit of the rider so it may gain better use of it's lance. This may work at first yes, but a horse can only do so much. As said before, a lance is wonderful, unless the enemy has a cuirass. (Did I spell that wrong? Trolololol!)

There are however several problems with this story.
In 1813 in the battle of Dennewitz was present only the 2nd Uhlan Regiment, the 4th Regiment was with Dabrowski's corps. The 2nd faced not only the Prussian hussars but also Tauentzien's cavalry and several battalions of infantry "...the Polish cavalry operating with Bertrand's IV Corps threw itself through the skirmish line and attacked the formed infantry behind them. The Prussian 4th Reserve Infantry Regiment formed square, as did three battalions of 3rd East Prussian Landwehr Regiment. The Poles then passed on and were engaged by Tauentzien's cavalry... The 1st Leib Hussar Regiment also joined the attack. The Poles were crushed, losing 9 officers and 93 men..." (Nafziger - "Napoleon's Dresden Campaign" p 260)
Thus it was not an even fight.
Marshal Ney sent orders to the Westphalian Cavalry Brigade to support the Poles but the Westphalians refused. Furious Ney sent the colonel of the Westphalians to Napoleon after "ripping off his epaulettes."

French officer de Brack however thought lance was an efective weapon also in melee.
Question: But, should the hostile cavalry follow and press you closely?
Answer: Use against them the "right," "left," and "around parries," which become powerful offensive movements ... In fact, the point cannot fail to reach the man, or the head of his horse, and the weight of the arm doubling the force of its impulsion, the enemy will be at once overthrown, or the horse be immediately stopped by the thrust.
I have witnessed a hundred illustrations of the truth of this, and, among others, may cite the case of the intrepid Captain Brou (now Colonel of the 1st Lancers), who, while near Eylau, in a charge which we made upon the Cossacks, believed himself already master of one of them, whom he had taken on his left side, and who held his lance at a "right front;" but the Cossack, standing up in his stirrups, and executing rapidly an "around parry," threw the Captain to the ground; his horse was captured, and he would have been made prisoner also, but for a courageous and skilfully executed charge made by Major Hulot, then commanding the 7th Hussars. ...""


Now then, as we can see by this, a skilled lancer can use it to his benefit. There are some serious goods and bads about a lance. It's an extreme weapon. Sacrifice agility with it for sheer range and stopping power for an unarmed foe. This tradeoff means 2 things:

(Note: In the bold lettering about how a regiment of polish lancers were crushed, I will give you it was outnumbered, but considering it took soo many losses and from the reports, it didnt give out a considerable number in defense, confirms that they arent as good in a thick melee.)
1) A better chance to kill an enemy that is unarmoured and isnt as mobile as you
and 2) You trade your skill for the thick of hand-to-hand combat for a quick strike.

A lancer must be swift. He is a hit and run kind of soldier. Without the support of a saber at hand, he is dead meat when it comes to the fight. Yes you might be skilled at blocking, but is it realistic to block so fast with a lance when on horse or foot? It is a rather lengthy thing. (thatswhatshesaid)

ANYWAY, I can quote so much stuff from this site.... I'll just report one more thing, and then leave you and some others to read the rest.

Last quote:

"Lancers vs infantry.
"... a cavalry charge against infantry in square
would be thrown back 99 times out of 100."
- Mark Adkin

According to Mark Adkin "a cavalry charge against infantry in square would be thrown back 99 times out of 100." Simple mathematics was against the cavalry when they attacked a square. An average strength battalion with 600 men formed a square 3 ranks deep, this meant that on one side were some 150 soldiers, all of whom could fire and contributed bayonets to the hedge. They covered a frontage of about 25 m (50 men x 0.5 m). The most cavalrymen that the enemy could bring to face them were 50 in 2 ranks (25 men x 1 m). But only the men in first rank could attack at a time, some 6 muskets + bayonets confronted a single lance or saber.
The man with saber could not strike the infantrymen behind the bayonets - he did not have the reach. A lancer had a better chance although he was still outnumbered by 6 to 1. Either the lancer or his horse was far more likely to be spiked than he was to inflict any damage at all."

In 1812 at Borodino and in 1813 at Leipzig masses of lancers and uhlans were unable to break a single square. However, if the infantry was not in square formation the chances increased for the lancers. In 1811 at Albuera one regiment of Polish uhlans and one of French hussars, demolished the entire British brigade, captured five Colors, several cannons, and hundreds of prisoners.
The [Prussian] Towarczy uhlans distinguished themselves at Eylau in 1807. James Arnold writes: “The Towarczy Regiment charged with lowered lance, speared isolated fugitives, captured one of the eagles of the [French] 51st Ligne, and almost routed the regiment. The Prussians captured 5 officers and 240 men during their assault through Kutschitten. By the narrowest the 51st Ligne retained some semblance of formation and stumbled backward to the safety of supports in the Birch Wood.” (Arnold - "Crisis in the snows" p. 342)

I know only several cases where the lancers broke infantry formed in square.
In 1813 at Dresden the Austrian square repulsed French cuirassiers but surrendered without a fight to lancers. Another square also repulsed cuirassiers but broke when 50 French lancers attacked them. The frustrated cuirassiers joined the lancers and together finished off the enemy.
In 1813 at Katzbach the lancers were called after the 23rd Chasseurs was repulsed. The lancers came and broke the square, inflicting heavy casualties on the Prussians.
In 1813 at Dennewitz one squadron of Polish 2nd Uhlan Regiment attacked Prussian battalion of 3rd Reserve Infantry Regiment. The infantry was formed in a column with skirmishers as its screen. The uhlans routed the skirmishers killing several and attacked the column. The Prussians were "savagely handled". The 2nd Uhlans also broke 2 other squadrons at Dennewitz."

Now, here is where the nerfing of their damage comes into play, and where their main usage also comes into play on the battlefield. They are devilish things against infantry that are scattered (I.e: Skirmies, routing infantry, marching infantry, charging infantry, etc) but against a well formed group of soldiers in a formation like square or what not, they should be mincemeat. As said here, they were a fearsome sight and sometimes made a square surrender on sight just by their presence, but this is MM where squares dont surrender because ***** WE HAVE RESPAWNS!!! But I digress. The lance should be made an efficient killing tool for infantry vs lancer and lancer vs unarmoured cav. Lancers are good at piercing a formation that is rather.... loose? and are very well in a charge, but in a hand to hand fight where blood and steel mix, they should be the kind to run away and fight another day.

Once more, here is the site that I've quoted oh so many times to prove a point.

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics_2.htm#_advantages_disadvantages_of_lance
 
Kator Viridian said:
Sorry but I disagree there ... 2 of the 52nd members when playing lancers do not use the lance, they prefer the sword, and are quite capable of using it to defeat lancers ... once again its nothing to do with power or weaponry but skilled use of whats given to you.

While you show that some people prefer to use the sword it still really just proves that they are more comfortable and better with swords. I my self would probably go for this option as well, since I believe that I would perform better with the sword as cavalry than with a lance. But, one has to account for the fact that people are inequally good with different weapons, some are good with swords, some are good with bayonets, some are good with thrown bottles. By just comparing preferences you will only find their preferences.

Kator Viridian said:
If your looking at the power of something you can't rule out how its played. A new player on foot WILL get beaten by a old player on lance point, an old player on foot will beat a new player on lancepoint. If the lancer was overpowered the lancer would win every time, but this is simply not the case. Using a lance still takes skill and i've seen it more than often used wrongly to the riders expense.

I think that would therefore mean the lancer is not OPed but put down the prowess of the player.

One HAS to rule out how it's played to get at the true power of how good some weaponry is. And as I said, all other things equal lancers essentially sit on all the strong cards, hell, I mean even if swords were better than lances lancers still do have the swords, so they have the real option of using lances which is worth something therefore same value+real option > same value --> Lancers are better.
 
O Evan, I knew this thread would come eventually. Like usual I recognize the vocal proponents of lancer nerfing as the ones in game who have the most trouble playing against them. Very good essay structure, by the way, I remember when I learned the words macro and micro back in highschool. I later learned that can be quite easily over applied at the expense of my argument.

I've had similar discussions with you personally many times, lets sum up some of our conclusions, shall we?

With respect to the lancer vs sword cav argument, the lancer has 1 attack direction, easily blocked by infantry or any foe, while swords have 3. The back up attack is a cumbersome couched lance, which leaves the rider more vulnerable to attack and imposes a heavy manouvering penalty while used. Couches are not in fact "insta-kills" by any means. I often couch horse, rider, or footman and see them live to keep fighting, it all depends on speed and angle. As for the proposal of couches doing less damage than stabs, this only reveals your own ignorance, as I have told you before. Couching delivers the full energy of horse and rider into the blow, through a braced grip, posture and stirrups. Any percieved advantage conferred onto the lancer by his weapon can be balanced by other cavalry having access to carbines(continental), or heavy swords(Britain).

Lancers present a much lesser threat to skilled infantry and even other cavalry than you would have us believe. While it is true that lancers and other cavalry are equally vulnerable to gunfire, I personally often find that lancers are perceived as a greater threat and are therefor high priority targets, not to mention the higher profile presented by a tall pointy flag carried by a horseman. I'm sure many would agree with me on this.

With regards to the breaking lancer/body sticking proposal, I cannot justify this, as to implement this level of realism you would also have to justify breaking/sticking swords, misfiring muskets, malfunctioning cannons etc.

If there is a problem, and I don't accept that there is, it is with the length/range of lance attacks, which in itself is countered by the presence of firearms in the hands of every enemy infantry. As my good friend Oposum has pointed out to me, the French lance can be quite challenging to counter due to its range. If you wish to nerf lancers, this is the place to go. I see no problem with all lances being closer to the length of the Prussian or even Russian lances.

@Oldplayer, I'm really not sure what to make of your attitude towards lancers. It seems like a passive/agressive crusade where even you are unsure of what you are saying. Its almost like you know deep down that its not overpowered, but get super frustrated at being unable to fight against them. Your posts seem to jump from half defending to subtly demonizing the class.

@Spearing, TL;DR bro, TL;DR

I think I'l let the words of my boy Akame play my post out, I think he really summed it up well and captured the truth of the matter:

Akame said:
Lancer's aren't that op...
Simple solution; lrn 2 play

T.
 
Seeing the info in the other tread I think the following would balance the lancers:

- Make all cavalry as fast. Never really understood why certain horses are faster anyways.
- Make lances couch only. As it said in the other tread on the innitial impact the lances were superior but it close combat they weren't (which they are now). Also I believe it said the lances were 3 meters long (so they would need to be longer as well) and thus not really usefull for close range fighting. (So using attack direction attacks wouldn't fit)

So yeah, couch only and a longer lance. Same speed for all cavalry. That should probably balance it. Essentially removing the OP of the lancer and bring more balance to all cav.
 
Back
Top Bottom