Cavalry too weak? (opinion poll)

[HorsieMAN]

I think a slight increase of the range of cavalry swords would even things up.                         

[Rhonerin]

Right i voted that they are weak but what i actually meant by this is that line infantry is too powerful vs cavalry.
Against jägers and artillery cav is very effective. But as i said that i dont want a rock papper scissor game.I dont want cav to be too powerful against jägers, sappuers and artillery either. They shoud have a decent chance to defend themselves against cavalry.

[Helixrider]

My experience and opinions
In MM Russia I always considered cavalry overpowered in MM, since it was possible for me, a player that is barely learning how to chamber mid combat, to slaughter at least twice the number of people a very experienced infantryman can in a public server, all by sneak and hit and run.

Now in NW, I see cavalry as a more of an heads on flank type, a single cavalry man in a mob of infantry can cause as much wreckage as a cannonball to the infantry, at least to my experience, and I feel that cavalry is much more of a tank than in MM Russia, which is the opposite most opinions, at the cost of speed (this explained by the dragoons that now move at the speed of slug).
I think going 1v1 is still unwise, as always cavalry needs the element of suprise to be effective.

[Urgnot]

They're sound.

[JeanChristophe]

I agree with rhonerin , infantry have a edge over cavalry. Mainly because of the poke that stops horses, buffed range on bayo, and also firepower. And people say hussar horses are fast like hell..they are slower then in mm (statwise). On the other hand I enjoy playing cavalry even more then I did in mm now, the use of different tactics to kill infantry has really brought the game up to a more intresting level for me. But I can see where frustration comes from towards infantry. Same as with lancers in mm (but infantry has firepower).

I also voted too weak, but I voted by the by the same thinking as rhonerin.

[DarkOmega]

It's the infantry that needs nerfed at those who play Calvary just need to stop playing like the did in MM and then all will be fine.

[Maboobs]

They're sound.

This man speaks da turth.

[Vorlen]

It's potentially all down to the bayonet range being longer than before, giving cav a much smaller margin for error.

Haven't voted because i'm unsure, i kind of think they are fine. And any buff would make them too good. But at the same time they are far too easy to kill as inf. Putting it all down to the bayonet changes tbh.

[Wodan All Father]

It's not to weak but yeah...Cavalry, defiantly far to weak. Dragoons should be given admin shotguns and rocket launchers and then the slow horse would still make them to weak hehe

But yeah, of course its to weak! Far far to weak definitely needs a massive enormous bump up hehe Nah just bump up horse speed a bit and it will be fine

[Pelgrane]

The changes from MM compared to the current patch are mainly these:
Lost some speed

"Some" means "a lot". Which also means loss of surprise, survivability, attack options, and damage and is all around a huge nerf.

Combined with the rest of the changes they add up to a big downgrade in terms of options, making gameplay boring as there's only a few things you're effective at doing now as opposed to a few things+some as in mm3.

The only thing that's better now from a gameplay perspective is hussar vs. cuirasseer duels.

Infantry in comparison has:
Lost some speed
Lost turning speed
Gained 20 length on bayonets

It also gained the long-ranged instakill overhead strike/sweep, which also always automatically stops horses regardless of damage dealt. Shooting also became much better because everything is now slower. Together with the HUGE bayo reach increase these things mean that infantry is now much stronger while skirmishing a bayonet strike away from each other, meaning horse is even worse than it used to be at engaging and killing stuff.

If you're going enumerate changes do so honestly.

The new changes detract from expectations of realism and are bad for class balance. Nothing else needs to be said, really.

But if Dragoons loose their muskets, they aren't Dragoons anymore, right? 

I think he is talking about the light dragoons for the british side. the ones with the silly short musketoons. Also I believe dragoons are just mounted infantry their purpose i believe was to ride to the battle dismount and fight on foot. Allthough i'm sure somone who holds more knowledge could confirm that for me.

Napoleonic dragoons are just low-prestige cavalry units with a bit more emphasis on dismounted training. That's all. They aren't true mounted infantry any more than Grenadiers are grenadoe-lobbers.

Like i said before. Cavalry is a support unit because unlike the rest, it can be destroyed if they do a frontal charge against an enemy line.

Let me correct that for you: they will get destroyed if they charge from ANY direction at a SINGLE infantryman if he has seen them, unless they overwhelm him 3:1, in which case they can finally chain-bump him. They will still lose one rider+one horse on average if they are of comparable skill level.

Cav players with local numerical superiority and more skills than their opposition, will, however, rack up respectable scores. Some people think that that represents balance, but I just want to know what the point of the entire class is? Other than fun/flavour, like playing a musician?

[Hekko]

"Some" means "a lot". Which also means loss of surprise, survivability, attack options, and damage and is all around a huge nerf.

This statement conveniently overlooks that it was a part of a general slowdown of the game, as seen in infantry losing athletics.

Combined with the rest of the changes they add up to a big downgrade in terms of options, making gameplay boring as there's only a few things you're effective at doing now as opposed to a few things+some as in mm3.

Options are still roughly the same, especially in battle since there are always other people to kill than that one prepared infantryman.

It also gained the longer-ranged instakill overhead strike/sweep, which also always automatically stops horses regardless of damage dealt. Shooting also became much better because everything is now slower. Together with the HUGE bayo reach increase these things mean that infantry is now much stronger while skirmishing a bayonet strike away from each other, meaning horse is even worse than it used to be at engaging and killing stuff.

The range of the overhead is the same-ish as for the downstab, today when testing against dummies I even once ended up out of range for the overhead while being able to hit it with the downstab. Hobnobs! Most people didn't know about the range increase until someone was kind enough to unpack stuff with morgh-tools. Shooting becoming better overall seems regrettable but that is the way the devs seem to want it, affects melee oriented infantry just as much as cav.

If you're going enumerate changes do so honestly.

I did.

The new changes detract from expectations of realism and are bad for class balance. Nothing else needs to be said, really.

Except for expectations of realism and class balance there were no changes. Charging prepared infantry head on never was a good idea in MM either no matter how you twist and turn it. I am avarage-ish with cav both in MM and NW, and the way I pick up kills pre and post change is by being opportunistic and using the speed of cav, I never was able to take on a decent infantryman 1v1, but I never had to.

Napoleonic dragoons are just low-prestige cavalry units with a bit more emphasis on dismounted training. That's all. They aren't true mounted infantry any more than Grenadiers are grenadoe-lobbers.

You are indeed right, at last someone who seems to have looked a bit further than ETW/NTWs description box of dragoons.

Let me correct that for you: they will get destroyed if they charge from ANY direction at a SINGLE infantryman if he has seen them, unless they overwhelm him 3:1, in which case they can finally chain-bump him. They will still lose one rider+one horse on average if they are of comparable skill level.

Cav players with local numberical superiority and more skills than their opposition, will, however, rack up respectable scores. Some people think that that represents balance, but I just want to know what the point of the entire class is? Other than fun/flavour, like playing a musician?

Let me point out that cavalry almost always has the option to create local numerical superiority due to their higher speed. It's not the gamebalance's fault that people choose not to excersise that option.

[Pelgrane]

"Some" means "a lot". Which also means loss of surprise, survivability, attack options, and damage and is all around a huge nerf.

This statement conveniently overlooks that it was a part of a general slowdown of the game, as seen in infantry losing athletics.

Infantry does not need athletics for speed bonus to damage, esp. now with 2 different attacks at 45 damage each. Infantry still cannot outrun cav but still can out-turn them. In fact, for infantry, the balance has not changed except now they have been given more time to aim muskets and prep bayo strikes.

I was hoping that this would make skirmishers better and thus more numerous but no, skirmishers are still a non-factor except for people who like using the rifle as a club, so cavalry still has relatively little to legitimately do on the battlefield. In fact, skirmishers are so in demand I'm able to get on the 95th rifles most times if I want to (that spot used to be taken up instantly in mm3, very popular regiment).

Options are still roughly the same, especially in battle since there are always other people to kill than that one prepared infantryman.

Yes. It's that fun metagame where everything other than line inf kills everything other than line inf, whereas line inf is in a class of their own, literally. Everything else is also class-limited on most servers.

Except for expectations of realism and class balance there were no changes. Charging prepared infantry head on never was a good idea in MM either no matter how you twist and turn it. I am avarage-ish with cav both in MM and NW, and the way I pick up kills pre and post change is by being opportunistic and using the speed of cav, I never was able to take on a decent infantryman 1v1, but I never had to.

I'm not going to even pretend to be a competent infantryman, but I did originally play cavalry and still do okay, and I'm definitely saying that things are different now. I trust your standing as a melee expert and while I disagree with the historical application of the bayonet (not a finesse weapon), I defer to you in your judgement of balance and fun when bayonet faces bayonet (finess required for enjoyment). I'm just not sure why you won't trust me or other commentators when it comes to horse. Why is it okay for infantry players to demand that skill ceiling for cav be lowered from the outset and they be railroaded into a very repetitive play pattern?

You are indeed right, at last someone who seems to have looked a bit further than ETW/NTWs description box of dragoons.

I like the period. If I didn't, I'd whine a lot less on these forums.

Let me point out that cavalry almost always has the option to create local numerical superiority due to their higher speed. It's not the gamebalance's fault that people choose not to excersise that option.

The reason why I had that remark in was Oposum's Tips on Heavy Cav exchange we had on the Cavalry is Rubbish thread. He said he needs 10 horse. I went and watched Euros play, and then consciously kept track of cavalry numbers meeting really scattered inf on American servers while playing after. It's not that 10 cuiraseers beat 15 inf like he said, it's more accurately that 3 cav (esp. heavies) will usually kill a man on foot fairly reliably, moreso if man does not have bayonet.

This is done by creating repeated 3:1 situations and I'd say cav still loses more HP between them than they inflict damage, but because of armour+heavy horses that is somewhat mitigated.

This should partly explain why LB cav seems to do better than pub play, besides formations being strictly worse than skirmishing at bayonet length. The maps are empty and you can indeed use speed to 3:1 individual men repeatedly, then use dodge-and-bump your way to victory one man at a time. It's okay, but it requires coordination, and empty maps.

Most maps are terribly cluttered, to the point where a man with a bayonet can completely block off major advance avenues without even trying (with his bayonet reach). Combine it with engineer spam, and...well. You can see what I'm talking about. It's not always an option, what Oposum said, and I don't see why it should even be necessary to start with.

[bdd458]

Whenever I play as cav, it feels so much slower compared to MM. They don't feel effective because they can't deliver in the speed.

When Jorge finally gets Cav at our Friday LB's I won't be afraid of them. They'll be too easy to kill.

[Menelaos16]

Cavalry still presents an equal opportunity to get kills. Maybe not against aware opponents but people in the opposite direction. Thus it is only used to get people off guard and in combat. I still can top the leader board playing cavalry.

[Kegger]

I think a point that almost everyone can agree on is that in order to play as well in NW as MM with cav, you have to play smarter.

This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. It adds to the realism which I'm almost always supportive of.

Cavalry attacking a formation with bayonets bristling from every angle = dead

Cavalry attacking a formation from the flank while they are engaged by another enemy = win