Current balance

[Rhonerin]

Right to make it clear what i want i dont want any class buffed i just want the infantry nerfed.

It is somewhat hard to balance a game where it's pikes versus horses because pikes should always win.

It's understandable to want that as an infantry member.
We have to choose beetween logic, historical accruacy and balance. And most important is always balance.

[Talii]

Right to make it clear what i want i dont want any class buffed i just want the infantry nerfed.

It's understandable to want that as a cavalry member. It is somewhat hard to balance a game where it's pikes versus horses because pikes should always win. But this thread does have some meaning and cavalry could use a buff a or two to even it out.

A Musket is in no way a pike. It is a 5 kg heavy wooden frame with a small steel end.

[Menelaos16]

Right to make it clear what i want i dont want any class buffed i just want the infantry nerfed.

It's understandable to want that as a cavalry member. It is somewhat hard to balance a game where it's pikes versus horses because pikes should always win. But this thread does have some meaning and cavalry could use a buff a or two to even it out.

A Musket is in no way a pike. It is a 5 kg heavy wooden frame with a small steel end.

It's an analogy, the point is we get miniature spears and make it hard for cavalry to fight infantry.

[avion365]

Right to make it clear what i want i dont want any class buffed i just want the infantry nerfed.

It's understandable to want that as a cavalry member. It is somewhat hard to balance a game where it's pikes versus horses because pikes should always win. But this thread does have some meaning and cavalry could use a buff a or two to even it out.

Bayo =\= pikes

pikes are 12 ft long

Boyo is about 5, maybe 6ft long

You also have to factor in the fact that he is not holding it by the butt end with one hand rtw style, You will have to take off about 2-3 feet of that for just holding the thing. so you have a 2ft-3ft extension from your hand. Depending on how the infantry man is attacking he can and will be out-ranged by cav. However Inf can still out-range cav most of the time, but never all the time and never against lancers.

[Alma69]

Why did they trayed to ballance demage by changing speed?
How about balance it by changing base demage. So melee rifles would be slower with still low demage, lance would not be ridicul slow.
And bayo would not be blazzing fast, faster then any malee specialized 2 times or 5 times lighter weapons.

[Jyppa]

There are ways to play dragoons very efficiently, but it requires more effort than other classes. If you learn to form your firing line as fast as humanly possible in favorable terrain, you can do a lot of damage against infantry lines on close to medium range. The distraction value is also huge - any infantry line under fire from mounted dragoons will immediately redirect all their shooting there, regardless of distance, allowing friendly infantry to win. As for melee, the heavier dragoon classes are comparable to heavy cav, and the lighter are comparable to hussars, in both cases slightly worse but far from worthless. I find that the best place for cav in NW is supporting infantry in melee engagements, where there's an abundance of targets not in the mindset of defending against cavalry. Dragoons have the option of taking a very close-range volley before engaging in these situations, which has on several occasions netted us 4-5 kills.

[Greentiny]

Dragoons do not have time to form up, shoot AND escape before the enemy turns and volleys with generally more shots and greater accuracy on larger targets (horses) therefore meaning that the dragoons come off worse for initiating. This is due to as I said earlier, the lower accuracy of the dragoons and perhaps the rules which could be at fault.

My point is, dragoons are meant to be mounted infantry, NOT a jack of all trades as they seem to attempt to be in this game. Therefore the key difference here is that they should be superior infantry to line infantry and skirmishers which is currently not the case.

Now, the problem could be that because the coding works with the base stats and points in weapon skills, it means that you cannot really make cavalry good on horse and worse on foot which should be the reality. This is why there is the current fact that most cavalry is better on foot than dragoons because dragoons have inferior sword skill or something to that effect.

Basically to sum up this... thing... dragoons should be one of the best units on foot but they are currently worst at everything.

[StuartD_MFC]

Dragoons do not have time to form up, shoot AND escape before the enemy turns and volleys with generally more shots and greater accuracy on larger targets (horses) therefore meaning that the dragoons come off worse for initiating. This is due to as I said earlier, the lower accuracy of the dragoons and perhaps the rules which could be at fault.

My point is, dragoons are meant to be mounted infantry, NOT a jack of all trades as they seem to attempt to be in this game. Therefore the key difference here is that they should be superior infantry to line infantry and skirmishers which is currently not the case.

Now, the problem could be that because the coding works with the base stats and points in weapon skills, it means that you cannot really make cavalry good on horse and worse on foot which should be the reality. This is why there is the current fact that most cavalry is better on foot than dragoons because dragoons have inferior sword skill or something to that effect.

Basically to sum up this... thing... dragoons should be one of the best units on foot but they are currently worst at everything.

This, except they shouldn't be superior to line infantry, they should be the SAME or close to the same as line infantry, with the ability to ride horses.

[Swargy]

I think the bayonet speed is fine, the other melee weapons need a speed boost.

like for example the partisan knife, it should be fast and spammable because its a freaking butterknife. The saber brique should be faster too, and of course the cav swords.

oh and also if the partisan sledgehammer could have a crushthrough that would be nice 

[Evanovic]

Cavalry are like skirmishers. They're not meant to take centre-stage in a battle. They're specialised classes that need to be managed into good positions. Like skirmishers and artillery need cover or support from Line Infantry (due to their melee vulnerability), cavalry need an element of suprise.
 
I have to say, I believe cavalry do go down a bit too easily to an aware infantryman, but I don't think it's infantry melee that should suffer because of it and cavalry should definitely stay as a peripheral to the infantry-focused game. I just think all horses should be a bit more maneuverable (mainly in the turning), so that a skilled cavalry man can 'dodge' or 'dummy' an infantryman's stabs as he circles him. The other thing would be increasing the cavalry sabre's range a slight bit; it seems to not be long enough to kill at enemy who is even in the very close permiter of the rider at certain angles unlike in MM.
 
Otherwise the whole concept of cavalry as a class should stay.
 
And on a slight side note, I think horseless riders should not have such bad athleticism. In the Napoleonic Wars many cavalry, especially Dragoons, would dismount to take buildings or positions on foot (that would have been unreachable for infantry in the given time). Therefore cavalry should not be viewed as de facto charging horse-riders, but also as maneuverable reconnaissance, scouts and skirmishers. This would also add diversity to the role as a compromise for anyone's dislike for how vulnerable cavalry can be on horseback.

[Talii]

Cavalry are like skirmishers. They're not meant to take centre-stage in a battle. They're specialised classes that need to be managed into good positions. Like skirmishers and artillery need cover or support from Line Infantry (due to their melee vulnerability), cavalry need an element of suprise.
 
I have to say, I believe cavalry do go down a bit too easily to an aware infantryman, but I don't think it's infantry melee that should suffer because of it and cavalry should definitely stay as a peripheral to the infantry-focused game. I just think all horses should be a bit more maneuverable (mainly in the turning), so that a skilled cavalry man can 'dodge' or 'dummy' an infantryman's stabs as he circles him. The other thing would be increasing the cavalry sabre's range a slight bit; it seems to not be long enough to kill at enemy who is even in the very close permiter of the rider at certain angles unlike in MM.
 
Otherwise the whole concept of cavalry as a class should stay.
 
And on a slight side note, I think horseless riders should not have such bad athleticism. In the Napoleonic Wars many cavalry, especially Dragoons, would dismount to take buildings or positions on foot (that would have been unreachable for infantry in the given time). Therefore cavalry should not be viewed as de facto charging horse-riders, but also as maneuverable reconnaissance, scouts and skirmishers.

I like to see all classes of this game as Equal, all with their own roles and benefits. To use Infantry as the basic class is rather arrogant, and Infantry Combat do need to suffer. It's both unbalanced and Unrealistic as it is now. Infantry should not be the gods of the battlefield, nor should any other class.

[avion365]

Dragoons do not have time to form up, shoot AND escape before the enemy turns and volleys with generally more shots and greater accuracy on larger targets (horses) therefore meaning that the dragoons come off worse for initiating. This is due to as I said earlier, the lower accuracy of the dragoons and perhaps the rules which could be at fault.

My point is, dragoons are meant to be mounted infantry, NOT a jack of all trades as they seem to attempt to be in this game. Therefore the key difference here is that they should be superior infantry to line infantry and skirmishers which is currently not the case.

Now, the problem could be that because the coding works with the base stats and points in weapon skills, it means that you cannot really make cavalry good on horse and worse on foot which should be the reality. This is why there is the current fact that most cavalry is better on foot than dragoons because dragoons have inferior sword skill or something to that effect.

Basically to sum up this... thing... dragoons should be one of the best units on foot but they are currently worst at everything.

You know by this period in time dragoons where not Mounted Infantry,  the only reason a lot of them where given that name was so they could pay them less, and the fact that almost 3/4 of the cavalry had carbines plus bayonets.

[Greentiny]

You know by this period in time dragoons where not Mounted Infantry,  the only reason a lot of them where given that name was so they could pay them less, and the fact that almost 3/4 of the cavalry had carbines plus bayonets.

This is a game and without using the unique aspect of dragoons they become regular cavalry and there is no point in having them in the game. Also people have been saying this a lot that the majority of dragoons were not mounted infantry however some still were so... your point?

[avion365]

My point is if you want to say Dragoons are mounted infantry then i guess the Dragoon Guards from UK where mounted infantry even though they had been called heavy cavalry all this time.

[Rhonerin]

Cavalry are like skirmishers. They're not meant to take centre-stage in a battle. They're specialised classes that need to be managed into good positions. Like skirmishers and artillery need cover or support from Line Infantry (due to their melee vulnerability), cavalry need an element of suprise.
 
I have to say, I believe cavalry do go down a bit too easily to an aware infantryman, but I don't think it's infantry melee that should suffer because of it and cavalry should definitely stay as a peripheral to the infantry-focused game. I just think all horses should be a bit more maneuverable (mainly in the turning), so that a skilled cavalry man can 'dodge' or 'dummy' an infantryman's stabs as he circles him. The other thing would be increasing the cavalry sabre's range a slight bit; it seems to not be long enough to kill at enemy who is even in the very close permiter of the rider at certain angles unlike in MM.
 
Otherwise the whole concept of cavalry as a class should stay.
 
And on a slight side note, I think horseless riders should not have such bad athleticism. In the Napoleonic Wars many cavalry, especially Dragoons, would dismount to take buildings or positions on foot (that would have been unreachable for infantry in the given time). Therefore cavalry should not be viewed as de facto charging horse-riders, but also as maneuverable reconnaissance, scouts and skirmishers.

I like to see all classes of this game as Equal, all with their own roles and benefits. To use Infantry as the basic class is rather arrogant, and Infantry Combat do need to suffer. It's both unbalanced and Unrealistic as it is now. Infantry should not be the gods of the battlefield, nor should any other class.

Could not have said it better myself