Do Rhodok/Nord really need cavalry?

[Helmut_AUT]

Slightly Offtopic: Isn't there any mod for Native 1.011 that changes weapon values (bows and spears/pikes boost) more to what seems historical?

I know that certain layered chainmail might have stopped arrows (some heavy plate too), but most of the time the inability of Archers to shoot someone of the horse also irks me. If you catch an arrow or crossbow bolt in a leg you won't do a lot of heavy riding IMHO.

Okay, it's called "Mount and Blade" but it has the potential for a more true historical "combat simulator" inside. So maybe Warband might go explore that direction more instead of simply adding more cavalry to some factions.

 

[Moss]

Try this: http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=1212

The latest versions animation changes crippled polearms, but once that's fixed again (and they are planning on fixing it), then polearms will be back to being one of the most deadly weapons in warbands.

As it is, the war spear is still my favourite weapon.

 

[Cormac BAMC]

Try this: http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=1212

The latest versions animation changes crippled polearms, but once that's fixed again (and they are planning on fixing it), then polearms will be back to being one of the most deadly weapons in warbands.

As it is, the war spear is still my favourite weapon.

A two man group with a sword and shield guy in front and a spearman behind is great fun. All you have to do is have the shieldman in front engage aggressively, and try to turn the target so he can't defend from a spear thrust.

 

[Nedews]

I much rather see better anti cavalry weapons for these nations then giving them a horse class. Maybe an anti-cavalry class instead?

 

 

[scythe111]

I much rather see better anti cavalry weapons for these nations then giving them a horse class. Maybe an anti-cavalry class instead?

now there's an idea!

 

[Moss]

Except of course, that they wouldn't be able to play capture the flag and conquest without cavalry, which is a slight problem when you think about it.

 

[Prussian Iron]

indeed. I mean, maybe something like an Ashwood pike, a Glaive, and maybe a bag of javelins and a long-ass axe or poleaxe. this wouldnt do too great versus normal infantry, but would pown cavalry. just imagine...

"Oh noes! Swadian knights are chargin me! what am I gonna do?!!?!"
"Ha-ha little man! prepare to die!"
"Oh way, I have my trusty long-ass poleaxe I can use! Hey there buddy, why dont you come on over-*WHACK*"
"**** that hurt!" now I am heavily injured and have no horse. this lance wont do **** for me!"
"hehehehe! *blood splatters everywhere*"

and that is not true: please see Halo 1, 2, and 3 for more info on how you can be on foot without anything extra and capture the flag.  run around throwing axes and javelins while they try to get you. lol epic win.

 

[Moss]

Hey, you know what's not Halo? Mount and Blade. The game mechanics are completely different, as are the maps.

It takes you a good five or six times longer to get from one side of a map to the other as an infantry man, that's kind of a serious problem. Conquest is even worse, seeing as if your entire team is on foot all it takes is one or two horsemen to run around behind you capturing all the flags. Running on foot from one end of a map to the other in heavy armour can take you a good two or three minutes depending on the map, by which time you've already lost the game. Not exactly my definition of fun.

Also, I've got no idea where you got "customisable stats" from, but considering that everyone has 6 points in athletics already, even with athletics 10 horses will still be riding circles around you.

 

[Prussian Iron]

I know they're different. CTF is the same though. hey you know what else takes about 3 minutes to run to the other side of the map? HALO.

And I think you are underestimating the intellects of people who play M&B. someone would likely be set up in a good camping spot to protect the flag from cavalry. and even if everyone was on horses, it would just be the same, only it would be less interesting because everyone is scoring like 0, 0, 0, 25 damage due to negative speed bonus on the horses. unless they changed the fact that not running at full gallop makes your hits worse than if you were standing still as an infantryman.

 

[Moss]

You don't see that as being potentially unbalancing though? Take the field by a river map. Team A playing Swadians, Team B playing Rhodoks.

Say, a half of the Rhodok team goes on the offense, the other half stay behind to defend. All of the Swadians go man at arms.

They then procede to run past the Rhodoks (who can't do more than take a shot or two with crossbows as they rush past). The Swadians then crash into the village, not even bothering to fight, they just trample the guys standing next to the flag long enough for someone to grab it. They then run home and score.

By which point the Rhodok attack arrives and gets it's ass kicked by the whole Swadian team. And even if they don't, they have to deal with at least two or three cavalry waves spawning and attacking them on the way home due to their slow move speed.

 

[Prussian Iron]

....That's why there are fences and other obstructions: to keep the cavalry from just trampling everyone. and with a couple bow/X-bow men at an elevated position, those cavalry are toast!

and do not say that they wouldnt be able to hit the horses going fast; people have no problem shooting horses and wargs at full speed on LotR conquest, which is much harder to use a bow on then M&B, admittedly without the expanding crosshair though.

 

[Moss]

If they're standing to the sides, where they can't be trampled, they can't stop people getting the flag. Even then, if they kill most of the guys and one gets away with the flag they don't have a snowballs chance of catching him. The point is that the team without cavalry has no chance of flag retrieval, once an enemy grabs it, he's pretty much untouchable and you've conceded a point, whereas the other side stands a good chance of riding him down and getting the flag back.

And the team of Rhodoks on offense here is half the size of the enemy team. Even if they're all crossbowmen and all of their shots hit they'll still only de-horse one or two guys. And even then, that's only if the Swadians are dumb enough to ride within effective shooting range, they can always use the other side of the river, or just go around them.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

You could give team players the ability to pick up their own flag so to better protect it.

 

[The Shadow]

Rhodoks need cavalry.  They don't have strong enough troops.  The Nords are good though.

 

[Sibilance]

Here's a keep-it-simple suggestion: How about only giving them the cavalry in Conquest and Capture the Flag, and giving them other appealing infantry options in other game types? Asymmetrical-but-balanced gameplay is more fun and better game design than just dishing out cavalry to everyone.

 

[RAD_X]

I belive that all factions should have similar troop trees, not identical, but similar, which implies that everybody needs cavalry (except maybe nords), everybody needs pikemen or atlest spearmen to counter cavalrry, and everybody needs ranged troops which i think is not a problem in Native. Now i don't say that all the nations need to field heavy knigths, but i would like to see more balance in troop trees in single palyer (i have no idea what's going on in MP)

 

[scythe111]

I belive that all factions should have similar troop trees, not identical, but similar, which implies that everybody needs cavalry (except maybe nords), everybody needs pikemen or atlest spearmen to counter cavalrry, and everybody needs ranged troops which i think is not a problem in Native. Now i don't say that all the nations need to field heavy knigths, but i would like to see more balance in troop trees in single palyer (i have no idea what's going on in MP)

i disagree. i think you need that "wtf them having that is so bs" factor. other major games in the world include that (or have people who complain a lot, same effect. i'm sure you can think of plenty of examples). i'd almost go so far as to say that only one faction gets swords, one gets axes, etc. unfortunately, we'd run out of stuff very fast. still, you should be able to identify the other faction by the weapon/s they're using. if for no better reason than that they were forged in their own nations and influenced by different cultures.

SO... to get back on the topic of horses- yes they need cavalry. no, it shouldn't be equally as good. distinct factions are going to be a major selling point for this game.

 

[DarkAnd]

I am not on beta, and has I read this topic I changed my opnion, they need cavalry, but a weak one, like a mounted crosbow for rhodoks and a scout for nords, what is needed is bring back the 808 anti horses polearms, any 5+ damage stab on a horse's chest would make it rear.

 

[RAD_X]

I belive that all factions should have similar troop trees, not identical, but similar, which implies that everybody needs cavalry (except maybe nords), everybody needs pikemen or atlest spearmen to counter cavalrry, and everybody needs ranged troops which i think is not a problem in Native. Now i don't say that all the nations need to field heavy knigths, but i would like to see more balance in troop trees in single palyer (i have no idea what's going on in MP)

i disagree. i think you need that "wtf them having that is so bs" factor. other major games in the world include that (or have people who complain a lot, same effect. i'm sure you can think of plenty of examples). i'd almost go so far as to say that only one faction gets swords, one gets axes, etc. unfortunately, we'd run out of stuff very fast. still, you should be able to identify the other faction by the weapon/s they're using. if for no better reason than that they were forged in their own nations and influenced by different cultures.

SO... to get back on the topic of horses- yes they need cavalry. no, it shouldn't be equally as good. distinct factions are going to be a major selling point for this game.

that's what i've pretty much said; btw similar troop trees do not render factions to be the same, they just make them more even

 

[scythe111]

I belive that all factions should have similar troop trees, not identical, but similar, which implies that everybody needs cavalry (except maybe nords), everybody needs pikemen or atlest spearmen to counter cavalrry, and everybody needs ranged troops which i think is not a problem in Native. Now i don't say that all the nations need to field heavy knigths, but i would like to see more balance in troop trees in single palyer (i have no idea what's going on in MP)

i disagree. i think you need that "wtf them having that is so bs" factor. other major games in the world include that (or have people who complain a lot, same effect. i'm sure you can think of plenty of examples). i'd almost go so far as to say that only one faction gets swords, one gets axes, etc. unfortunately, we'd run out of stuff very fast. still, you should be able to identify the other faction by the weapon/s they're using. if for no better reason than that they were forged in their own nations and influenced by different cultures.

SO... to get back on the topic of horses- yes they need cavalry. no, it shouldn't be equally as good. distinct factions are going to be a major selling point for this game.

that's what i've pretty much said; btw similar troop trees do not render factions to be the same, they just make them more even

no, you specifically said "...everybody needs cavalry (except maybe nords), everybody needs pikemen or atlest spearmen to counter cavalrry, and everybody needs ranged troop..."

i'm proposing, for instance, that instead of pikes to take horses out... they get arbalests! something like that. i suggest radically different troops. you can have your standard footmen, even, very different. give one faction a swordbreaker! i'd love to see that.