Which I agree, currently they are OP/'easy' to steamroll with and get that head start but also, it's not like they falloff late game either. Infantry need some love so they have more relevance.They have the best weapon for cavalry in the Glaive and 260 Polearm to crush anything in their way. Like i said these guys and the Fians are busted. they aren't even fun to play with after a while.
They will make you more than enough money to pay for themselves. even if you go down these guys just bulldoze any army.
Ok, yes 0.3 difference not that big a deal from your point - but if I can use ~200 HAs which would have a comparable combat power as a 450 infantry, you can't deny the difference in speed there is further advantageous.Party speed changes from 2.3 to 2.6 when switching the entire 450 party from infantry to cavalry. that is a bare 0.3 and considering it's likely we have some 100 cavalrymen anyway it can only be a difference of just 0.2 .it's there sure. but we aren't gaining 1 or even 0.5 difference. Other thing is that we can release 1 party from our army and they will pursue the enemy for us. Speed while in an army becomes less important. it's as simple as that. For your single party sure but the late game is all about this, big army, take over town, leave 50 to 100 troops in there.
Subjective to each player's own playstyle, I like using smaller parties as a handicap - but again, my small party of HA can go a long way to get my party# maxed just from freed/prisoners which is not as efficient using other troop-types; given the amount of spammed battles involved too vs attrition.And party size is king, you have control over what that guy is. you shouldn't go around in an army with less troops.
Only time i drop to 150 is when i want to hunt someone: future vassals & mercenary leaders. but now we can convert them from the prison so i don't even do that very often anymore.
I thought we weren't going to account this perk but yes, same thing, just as how 'free' horses here benefits the infantry, it also does so with HAs.Medicine "Veterinary" perk will give you more cavalry than you can even count. i often have to butcher or sell them. All you need to do is not loosing. The war horses are still a bit tricky to get but you will be drawing in normal mounts.
I haven't played the recent patches to know where those wage perks land but I still think the cost of infantry to cavalry/HA needs to work better in their favor than what it is currently (being cavalry/HA too cheap).Some perks apply to infantry other to archer other again to cavalry. yes there are general perks but there are also specialized ones. One of the last crossbow perks cuts the wages of archers down by 50%. not really worth getting to but once again you can make units way cheaper than you think.
Yes, but I'm trying to say that by comparison, HA/range are much too OP vs infantry, both in battle and in costs.not in any situation. no. There are many reasons as to why that's not possible. but if the right map or the imbalances in troop level were to play a role you can swing the result one side or the other. of course a troop with projectile will always be more impactfull than one who doesn't. that's the simple nature of having a ranged option.
The thing is that we are both being carried away now when all of this discussion started for an entire different reason.
i am perfectly fine with that too. normal horse archers are strong but you can deal with them. the Khans are busted and you can do little to nothing against them. Even when they run out of arrows their armor and glaives are absurd to deal with.
This entire discussion only started because of somebody calling out someone else effort. that's all it was.
Yes, not arguing that point, HA are OP/'easy'/less effort than a more mixed group; but likewise, even if infantry can be used effectively, the amount of effort required is too much of a difference as it is now where they need some sort of buff.Of course we both play how we want. i have no problem with that. as long as nobody calls out others for no reasons. i am in favor of all playstyles, efficient inefficient i don't care. i am in favor of broken mechanics like the smithy for players that don't want to deal with the economy side of things and such. i just can't stand when someone calls others out, especially when it's effort we talk about.
Yes, and there is still some fixing/balancing required overall from TW. But to that point, for party compositions, there should be a higher ratio # of top tier infantry vs # of top tier HAs of an opposing lord's party.Only problem is that the player will always have the advantage over the AI, if the patch notes are true now lords will bring even less trained troops to the fights and that only makes the player stronger. When was the last time you've seen a lord bringing 100 Legionary or any T5 troops in triple digits to a fight? in vanilla that is.