Nordic Cavalry

[Grimworg]

*Swadian's: heavy/strong cavalry, mediocre infantry and descent archers

sorry , but i disagree , the swadian heavy cavalry needs some kind of support when they get in trouble , and this support are the infantry , then the swadians must have descent , or strong , infantry.

and about nordic cavalry , yes , it should be implmented , for now the nords are "vulnerable" without cavalry

The only time my Nords are ever vulnerable is against them damned horse archers from that funky spelled faction.

Otherwise, they tend to mulch on everything else.

Giving them any sort of Calvary to tie up those Horse Archers will take away their weakness and natural disadvantage in battle, which, for a Nord Player; IS FINE BY ME.  Its not that I avoid the confrontation, I hire mercenary calvary or train swad's or vae's for the task -if I gotta-.

Thats the natural pecking Order in M&B. (As I seen it though me Nordish Forcez)

-Swadian's have the best Heavy Calvary in game.  If your playing against them, best thing to do is to grit your teeth and let them hit you, since the AI hasn't figured out how to use a -flow through- strategy, you can eat their calvary long before their infantry arrives, but you will take light casualties.

-Vaegir's has the best mix of all three, though not overly strong in either, allowing a player playing them to diversify their starting army.  Fighting them though isn't overally difficult, wipe out their calvary and infantry, and the archer's just stand there, waiting to be butchered.

-Khergits get the best light Calvary with access to mounted archery, making them deadly on the open fields.  In wooded areas and against spear-touters IN wooded areas, they drop like flies.  Their main advantage is mobility, when they lose that, their dead.

-Rhodocks are supposed to be the best Spearmen in the game, and essentially they are, you cannot engage the Rhodocks in battle without some sort of causalties to your mounted forces.  Unless of course, your extremely lucky, or in my case, use them only after the infantry has engaged them.

-Nords are the best Heavy Infantry in M&B only because that's all they have.  Just because you can breeze over them with your calvary force doesn't make them overly weak and frail.  It means your playing the game right, and smart, because if you've ever try to take them on with just infantry, their mid tiers seem to eat other high end tiers for breakfast.  You may win the fight; sure, with your elite skills and high level.
But how many others are standing with you?

They do not need a Calvary Line.
DO NOT.
It would be NICE, if not unattainable to see a Troop Line dedicated to throwing weapons.
But not a line in Calvary.

 

[ArakDemonBlade]

I'm thinking of a doing a complete troop tree overhaul for everyone. Haven't yet though.

I did however give Nords a Raider unit (same tier as the Nord Warrior I think).

Basically a saddle or sumpter horse with a Nord Guy on it carrying a spear, hand axe, throwing stuff, or some combination of the three and wearing light armor. The idea wasn't to make them a cavalry power but to force the enemy to rethink their old strategies for fighting Nord because they can no longer just sit back and let archers shoot without the raiders showing up.

Personally I think giving the Nords one light cavalry for harassment is a good means to diversify strategy.

I also agree on a skirmisher line too but that's a different discussion.

 

[Triosta]

Just give nord footmen a sumpter horse and change their name to scout. Of course I believe that non-cavalry units should also have the chance to get a horse, because if they can afford plate armor they can get a stupid horse. And all leaders would enjoy the option of more horses on the field.

 

[Balinux]

I say no!

 

[DamienZharkoff]

Or the Fleeing ones. And I am swadian, and for this idea

 

[Balinux]

I still can't believe that I'm the only one who is laughing his ass off over the fact that it's always the Vaegirs and Swadians who are so vehemently opposed to any diversifying of the Nord troop pole.

You want them to have cavalry?

 

[Balinux]

If it would be that crapy, then they'd just mess things up even more for the nords. The archery thing is what really needs fixing.

 

[Grimworg]

I still can't believe that I'm the only one who is laughing his ass off over the fact that it's always the Vaegirs and Swadians who are so vehemently opposed to any diversifying of the Nord troop pole.

Nord Supporter.

Don't Like the Calvary Idea .

But bah, I'll play it regardless :V

 

[F50]

ATM all you need is about 50 mounted units and you'll own any nord group with minimal losses using basic scatter techniques. If they had some normal troops on horseback they could easily break up your nice formly swadian knights by just being somewhat faster then the normal troops

That is because the Nord lords have no idea how to use their Nord troops.

Furthermore, as a Khergit/Nord, I find that I take decent losses from nords with Khergits, and order all of my mounted units to dismount as Nord (don't want to be like mountain bandits having my forces come in two waves). The only thing that I would like is an AI that will actually mount horses when you order them to and not several minutes later.

-Rhodocks are supposed to be the best Spearmen in the game, and essentially they are, you cannot engage the Rhodocks in battle without some sort of causalties to your mounted forces.  Unless of course, your extremely lucky, or in my case, use them only after the infantry has engaged them.

while I agree with everything else you said, Rhodocks suck against cavalry, suck against infantry, and suck against archers (but not crossbowmen). I often fought Rhodock forces as a Khergit without losses. I'm hoping the Dinosia implementation of the Rhodock fix will lessen this problem, though.

 

[Landwalker]

The point would be so that you wouldn't have to chase fleeing troops to the ends of the earth.

1)  There are no fleeing troops, so this is irrelevant.

2)  You want your Nordic army to have cavalry?  Hire mercenaries.  That's what mercenaries exist for: To fill whatever gaps need filling.

Cheers.

 

[your nightmare]

i'm all in for the idea of nords having cav . in medieval 2 denmark even had some kind of bisschops on horse figthing in their ranks ( don't shoot me if it isn't historical correct i only saw it on mtw2) . but i think that nords should have cav ( mostly light , heavy should be quite unique) and also archers(also compromised because they would have good hand-to-hand combat skills)

that's my vision on the whole nords-troop-tree thingy 

 

[Balinux]

  That's what mercenaries exist for: To fill whatever gaps need filling.

Cheers.

Those are called gigolos.

 

[Landwalker]

  That's what mercenaries exist for: To fill whatever gaps need filling.

Cheers.

Those are called gigolos.

Well played.

Cheers.

 

[Shik]

The point would be so that you wouldn't have to chase fleeing troops to the ends of the earth.

1)  There are no fleeing troops, so this is irrelevant.

World Map - Cavalry moves faster than infantry on the map.

2)  You want your Nordic army to have cavalry?  Hire mercenaries.  That's what mercenaries exist for: To fill whatever gaps need filling.

Why is it that Swadians and Vaegirs don't have any gaps in need of being filled then? That in itself sounds like an imbalance.

Cheers.

 

[Balinux]

Because that's their thing. They have ballanced unit types, while the nords have the best infantry and the khergits have very dangerous cavalry armies. The rhodocks are just cannon fodder.

 

[Shik]

Aren't you that guy who said that Rhodoks should stay sucky, because that's their THING?

 

[Balinux]

No, Im the one who said that infantry armies are boring to play with, unless the battalions thing is implemented.

edit: Their pikemen should be able to halt cavalry charges, being special for it.