Open field multiplayer combat

[Gilwe]

Hello,

You might have noticed that many players prefer switching to horsemen in open field battles, transforming the battlefield into a big, chaotic hunting ground. Horsemen pursuit other horsemen and lock their sights on every lone warrior or archer that prefers to stand with both feet on the ground.

90% of the time, I prefer infantry over horsemen in these kind of situations. I hold my Pike, Awlpike or Warspear firmly in my hand and brace myself as the enemy horsemen come charging at me head-on. It just feels so instense and satisfying as I thrust my spear into his horse and the enemy helplessly falls on the ground, only to be oblitterated by my trusty two-hander or polearm two seconds later.

I prefer this style of playing as it is more challenging and intense than just riding on a horse and pointing a lance at someone.

What do YOU prefer to play in these kind of battles?

 

[ElazulHP]

"It just feels so instense and satisfying as I thrust my stick into his horse"

LOL... sorry... lol... can't stop laughing.

 

[Gilwe]

"It just feels so instense and satisfying as I thrust my stick into his horse"

LOL... sorry... lol... can't stop laughing.

Edited. I don't want any inappropriate stuff around 

 

[YTG]

Other than the sexual implications im inclined to agree. I always get the longest pike there is and allow horses to run themselves into it.

 

[Austupaio]

I don't want any inappropriate stuff around

I ****ing love thrusting my throbbing awl into other players and their ponies.

 

[Scully]

Avoid using the word "thrust" at all cost.

 

[Catholic]

Ah, yes, I love thrusting and beating other people with my spear.

I'm generally archer in open areas. Can't stand inf. In closed combat areas I prefer infantry.

 

[RalliX]

I am rather similar to the OP, but sometimes I will go cavalry myself to prove a point to the lowly mounted pubbers. 

 

[Chaingun]

Polearm vs horse is quite balanced, just boring if it's 1v1. Many polearms vs many cav is quite interesting though.

I do find random maps to be the most interesting maps in Warband. Too bad there aren't random city maps too. (Quite fed up with people learning how to maximize camping on a single map, much more fun to have to adapt to new environment quickly.)

 

[Golradir]

I am rather similar to the OP, but sometimes I will go cavalry myself to prove a point to the lowly mounted pubbers. 

Same, mostly when I'm really annoyed

 

[brognar]

If you put starting gold down to 0%, people can't start with horses, so it fixes the problem. Once they can afford horses, some switch to cavalry but others can't be bothered and so keep playing infantry.

 

[Chaingun]

"Problem" 

Starting gold 0 = team that wins first rounds automatically keeps wining whole rest of game(map), more commonly than with current system that is. Once some guys have horses and others don't the whole thing is not going to be pretty on an open map.

But I agree in principle it'd be nice with a different economic system, still, with the current system, setting min gold to 0 won't work from a balance perspective.

Also, from my subjective viewpoint battle without cav = boring but it's OK to disagree on this point.

 

[Jaime]

Open, random maps are by far the best; no camping and no pre-determined strategy.

Improvisation and adaptation along with no structures to camp, don't see how you can argue against that.

 

[Golradir]

Hm. Archer and cav spam.

 

[Mr.X]

Open, random maps are by far the best; no camping and no pre-determined strategy.

Improvisation and adaptation along with no structures to camp, don't see how you can argue against that.

Sorry, no camping? You'll have to explain that one to me, don't think I've ever actually seen it before.

 

[BigBoss]

Open, random maps are by far the best; no camping and no pre-determined strategy.

Improvisation and adaptation along with no structures to camp, don't see how you can argue against that.

Sorry, no camping? You'll have to explain that one to me, don't think I've ever actually seen it before.

We had a little experience recently that can invalidate one of Vanidar's points, lol.

 

[Chaingun]

Well they're not entirely free of camping, for sure. Map border camping is as a big WTF as it ever was. Still, such camping is quite non-optimal compared to that of players that played e.g. Village 1000 times.

 

[Jaime]

Open, random maps are by far the best; no camping and no pre-determined strategy.

Improvisation and adaptation along with no structures to camp, don't see how you can argue against that.

Sorry, no camping? You'll have to explain that one to me, don't think I've ever actually seen it before.

We had a little experience recently that can invalidate one of Vanidar's points, lol.

I think you misunderstood.

What I'm trying to convey is that plains has an overall sense of fairness; no camping in the sense that you can't lolturtle in a building with hammers or occupy the higher area of some urban map (lolnordtownvillageportassault) with archers and refuse to move from that spot, forcing your enemy to fight in an extremely disadvantageous position. These strategies and crutches are always the exact same in the exact same spots each map.

When one side picks plains, for example, spawn choice is irrelevant because each side is, for the most part, equal.

Read the entire post, not just a keyword. How to syntax and context?

 

[CalCD]

I think that infantry has some pretty definite advantages against cavalry 1v1, to the point where its almost foolish for anybody on a horse to charge an infantryman head on, no matter what weapon the man on foot has.
Of course, cavalry tend to accumulate more kills anyway, since they zoom around the map and prey on people with tunnel vision, but infantry is definitely more fun than spending five minutes backstabbing people and being shot at alternatively.

 

[FDEL]

I think that infantry has some pretty definite advantages against cavalry 1v1, to the point where its almost foolish for anybody on a horse to charge an infantryman head on, no matter what weapon the man on foot has.
Of course, cavalry tend to accumulate more kills anyway, since they zoom around the map and prey on people with tunnel vision, but infantry is definitely more fun than spending five minutes backstabbing people and being shot at alternatively.

Assuming that the both players are competent, I'm pretty sure cav has the advantage as long as the infantry doesn't have something anti-cav. After all, couches break shields and is unblockable with a weapon, and lance thrusts will win most encounters if the inf opts to attack. Even in a stalemate situation, the cav is much more free while the inf needs to keep attention.