"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.