Horsemen v.s. Archers/xbowmen

[PsykoOps]

Please refer to my youtube video on the OP. Yes even unarmored horses really hurt people. As I said before it is all about speed and mass. The main problem I have is that archers/xbowmen just brush aside any trample land just wait till the very last moment to shoot. That is not realistic at all, if you think so go try it your self, I'll send you some flowers in the hospital. Also it is not they movement speed that I am talking about, it is the jumping, that is what is ridiculous.

Real life things aside this is a game. In the game a single swords slash doesn't kill. Single bolt wont kill. A tramble with a horse don't kill. That's the way it is and cavalry shouldn't be somehow magically special that they get to be more like real life when attacking but not when they take damage. A real horse goes down easily, very easily and compared to that even a saddle horse in game is a tank.

[Edit to add] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0l-iZrpLbI See how well the saddle horses, coursers and hunters do against infantry? They charge them head on several men deep lines and go through. They shouldn't be able to do that.

 

[Night Ninja]

Hunters should. They're a bit of a light-duty war mount, whereas the coursers aren't.

 

[PsykoOps]

Hunters should have the ability to charge through a line of light infantry such as archers but in the vid you see them do that an after that they go through a line of veterans. When an unarmored horse can do this then there's just no reason to buy an armored one.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Totally incompetent and overly arrogant commanders, indisciplined and overenthusiastic troops, inability to coordinate various arms of the whole force to a reasonable degree and a military mindset focused on frontal charges?

Best ever.

 

[UsF]

A horsemen also spread fear when close. This is missing ingame. Archers and crossbows still can aim steadily at a charging horsemen, even when it is walking around you really close.
Heavily armored horsemen are no problem for an archer. The archer can dodge easily. The horsemen themself have rather big turning arcs or they are really slow.

I am not sure about this, but what if archers and crossbowmen would loose their accuracy if a horsemen is within a range of around <10 meters? This would either force them to try lucky shots (which would look like random panic shots), pull out their melee weapon and fight effectively with this or rout and run away.
The last problem is that an archer can put a shot into the horsemen at any time, interrupting his attack. This could also be the main problem. If it would be rarer for enemies to be staggered when using high armor (right now you flinch at every impact in my experience), armored horsemen would be better and a last shot would rarely safe an archer.

The main counter to horsemen should be pikemen. The problem here is that every Rhodok can carry a pike, no matter his other loadout. The need for specialization is gone, but that is also due to the size of the small skirmishes we have.

 

[PsykoOps]

If you want fear simulated then add it to all classes in all situations that would cause fear. Such as coming under fire, facing a group of enemies that is bigger than yours etc.

[Edit to add] Also you guys tend to think in 1vs1 situations. The main advantage of cavalry is that when 2+ cav work together their force becomes multiplied. One on one cav is nothing special.

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

OK i am a horsemen and i have no problem killing archers, heck i can kill spear men, and even guys with awlpikes, so i don't see what you mean, unless your just not that good at cavalry, but I'm not one to judge.  I think things are balanced, except maybe for couch lancing, which takes no skill what so ever.

As for the longbowmen only being able to stop cavalry charges in certain circumstance's, that is not right, in every battle where you had English longbowmen vs French knights (who where some of the best in Europe) they always stopped the cavalry charge.

 

[Kapt Torbjorn]

OK i am a horsemen and i have no problem killing archers, heck i can kill spear men, and even guys with awlpikes, so i don't see what you mean, unless your just not that good at cavalry, but I'm not one to judge.  I think things are balanced, except maybe for couch lancing, which takes no skill what so ever.

As for the longbowmen only being able to stop cavalry charges in certain circumstance's, that is not right, in every battle where you had English longbowmen vs French knights (who where some of the best in Europe) they always stopped the cavalry charge.

Agincourt is not "every time".  It was one battle.

 

[PsykoOps]

They did it more often than that. Untill the battle of vernuil or some such thing. Untill then the armor wasn't good enough on horses but when the lombard cavalry came to the battlefield they moved right through the archers.

 

[Jericho]

In all the historic battles when archers/xbowmen decimated cavalry they were protected by barriers (natural and fabricated) and supported by infantry. A sound tactic well proven long before the hundred years war. 

OT I have been using hunters more often and I find it a bit frustrating that after charging at a full gallop into an archer and knocking him down, he is still able to get back up and shoot another arrow almost immediately! Archers and infantry getting hit from heavier horses need more of a stun effect IMO.

 

[Tibertus]

They did it more often than that. Untill the battle of vernuil or some such thing. Untill then the armor wasn't good enough on horses but when the lombard cavalry came to the battlefield they moved right through the archers.

Yes, the british won more often than not, but it wasn't because of their magic longbowmen. They won very often because of their combined forces. Agincourt was special because the British army was withdrawing and only had a small portion of it's force available, most of which were longbowmen. It's the only real case I know of archers winning a battle on their own. The only reason they did, as well, is because of very good planning, and being lucky enough to have the location that they did.

 

[JoG]

Yes, the british won more often than not, but it wasn't because of their magic longbowmen. They won very often because of their combined forces. Agincourt was special because the British army was withdrawing and only had a small portion of it's force available, most of which were longbowmen.

A small portion? Hm... Very interesting...

It's the only real case I know of archers winning a battle on their own. The only reason they did, as well, is because of very good planning, and being lucky enough to have the location that they did.

Do not mix up Crecy and Agincourt. At Agincourt everything ended up in melee. It was not surprising because bodkin arrows were able to penetrate plate armors of XV century only from the very short distance.
And... mounted attack was only the first one, French knights attacked English flanks. French 2nd and 3rd lines of battle were almost exclusively dismounted troops.
It was at Crecy (70 years earlier) when only a few French mounted knights were able to break through the arrow hail and engage English infantry (total English losses were ca. 200 men, including only 40 MAA).

And... there were a lot of battles where even the good defensive position didn't help English to win the battle. Even in 1350s there were a lot of these.

 

[joseph590]

I AGREEE.because archer can own horses man in a sap if you  try to stab one you will be shot right there and then and if you hit  someboud you should be able to go right hor them no matter what horses if a horses runs 40 to 80 mph the horses anti going to stop going

 

[test]

Cavalry doesn't need anymore help.  They've always been amazing, and will continue to be.  The simple fact that they can oneshot players, engage and disengage at will, be anywhere at once, and cherry-pick targets would be considered insanely OP in any other game.

One or two cavalry players can wreck entire teams.  It's why you never charge foot units without killing off horses first.

Stop talking about how things were "historically", when historically there were 30 footmen and 50 archers for every nobleman that could afford an horse, much less an armored one.

 

[PsykoOps]

Yeah exeactly historically speaking the troops sizes matter alot. In real life and in gameplay the huge thing about cav is that when they work together 2+ cav can do serious damage. 1 cav is nothing special and unless they sneak up on someone are pretty much on even ground with inf/archers. I've seen it many times in game when 2 cav work together they can take on a larger groups easily.

 

[Kevlar]

and cherry-pick targets would be considered insanely OP in any other game.

We are talking about M&B though

Archers and xbow pretty much just beat anything at this point so no use making a thread about how one class is beaten by it really. I have been saying since I started archers/xbow should only get like 15 arrows per quiver, right now they still have an insane amount.

 

[l3asu]

Any type of unit can take down a large group of people. It depends on the skill of the player.

 

[PsykoOps]

If that's the case then isn't the whole thread pointless?

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

There where allot of battles where the longbowmen were a winning factor, its just Agincourt was the most famous because there were mostly longbowmen and because they where outnumbered.  I am not saying that English longbowmen where invincible, but there are not vary many battles that where lost because of longbowmen, there are several battles where, if they hadn't had longbowmen, they would probably have lost.

Again i go back to, i have no problem killing archers, i think it is more of how you go about killing them that makes a difference.

P.S. I may be a bit bissest because i am English, and i am in a sense a longbowmen my self (i have one which i use) but being English i have spent alot of time studeing the history of my native land.

 

[Tiberius]

Bring trample damage back. Right now your best choice when being charged at by a horseman is getting DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IT because you just get stunned and the other guy gets stopped dead on his tracks, making him a easy target.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a horse with a guy on top of it is running towards me, the least thing I wanna do is get hit by it, right?