[Suggestion] Further Nerfs for Horse Archery

[Cwvym]

That is your opinion to which you are entitled; some of us feel differently. Any suggestions?

 

[PsykoOps]

I wouldn't nerf them at all. They're just fine as they are.

 

[Cwvym]

Oh thanks for sharing. Next...

 

[Yellonet]

I'll repeat, keep increasing realism and the game will balance itself.

 

[Kevlar]

I'll repeat, keep increasing realism and the game will balance itself.

Except that cavalry would be invincible but ok.

 

[Jean Plassy]

"Cavalry Realism" would consist in horses not acting like motorcycles like they do now. That would be fine  .

 

[AoC]

I wouldn't nerf them at all. They're just fine as they are.

If you don't think Khergit Horse Archers are overpowered, **** off, this is not the thread for you.

Which word you failed to understand ?

Horses need changes. Horse archer need changes. Archery need changes. Attack animations from horseback need change. Shield combat need change.

 

[CryptoCactus]

Except that cavalry would be invincible but ok.

IRL horses are invincible? Holy ****!

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

I'll repeat, keep increasing realism and the game will balance itself.

Except that cavalry would be invincible but ok.

They'd be invincible despite the fact that a single arrow could cause your horse to go crazy, veer off course, and disrupt an entire charge? Or hell even hitting them once in a good place could cripple them and cause them to collapse.

I think Yellonet is right. Increased realism will lead to increased balance. Though of course due to the medium you can only include a certain amount of realism at all.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

Yeah, because cavalry, infantry and archers were so balanced in real life.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

Yeah, because cavalry, infantry and archers were so balanced in real life.

At a battlefield level they were. There is a reason armies used a mix of them.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

Using a mix of troop types in "reel lyfe" in no way suggests that each type was more or less on par with the others.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

Using a mix of troop types in "reel lyfe" in no way suggests that each type was more or less on par with the others.

I didn't say they were, and I'm not saying they should be in game. Each class just needs to have a role to fill, and should be mostly ineffective at other roles.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

So you'd be okay with cavalry being hugely overadvantaged against infantry?

 

[Ursca]

After playing a bit against a team composed entirely of horse archers - Wow, are they horrible. They were just kind of annoying in the past, but they seem a lot more accurate now. Archery in general seems pretty powerful in this update with arrows going around a shield (even a big one) almost as much as they hit it. So yeah, I think something needs a tweak.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

So you'd be okay with cavalry being hugely overadvantaged against infantry?

They weren't. Pike walls and archery were plenty capable of reducing cavalry charges to nothing. However they should have an advantage against disorganized infantry or infantry only armed with close-melee weapons.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

So you'd be okay with cavalry being hugely overadvantaged against infantry?

They weren't. Pike walls and archery were plenty capable of reducing cavalry charges to nothing. However they should have an advantage against disorganized infantry or infantry only armed with close-melee weapons.

They already do, but they in earlier patches they could destroy even pikemen and people were okay with that because it was somehow "realistic".  My point was that you don't balance the classes of a game with respect to their real-world counterparts.  There are too many modifiers in real life.  This is a game, and realism only goes so far.  (Not very far)

As a side note, are you aware that everything you say on these forums comes across as condescending?

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

They already do, but they in earlier patches they could destroy even pikemen and people were okay with that because it was somehow "realistic".

But that's NOT realistic. Pikemen would destroy a formation of horsemen.

My point was that you don't balance the classes of a game with respect to their real-world counterparts.  There are too many modifiers in real life.  This is a game, and realism only goes so far.  (Not very far)

Simply put, I disagree. I mean I agree realism can only go so far, but I think it goes quite far.

As a side note, are you aware that everything you say on these forums comes across as condescending?

I don't particularly care how I sound. I voice my opinion, and that is it.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

They already do, but they in earlier patches they could destroy even pikemen and people were okay with that because it was somehow "realistic".

But that's NOT realistic. Pikemen would destroy a formation of horsemen.

I agree.  That's why I like the current mounted combat.

My point was that you don't balance the classes of a game with respect to their real-world counterparts.  There are too many modifiers in real life.  This is a game, and realism only goes so far.  (Not very far)

Simply put, I disagree. I mean I agree realism can only go so far, but I think it goes quite far.

It already has gone quite far.  Pushing it any further is just going to hurt the game.  And I don't understand why you think a game designer should set out to implement real life and tweak it for gameplay rather than vice versa.

As a side note, are you aware that everything you say on these forums comes across as condescending?

I don't particularly care how I sound. I voice my opinion, and that is it.

As I suspected, you ARE aware.

 

[silentdawn]

Lets hold off on the hostilities and try to work with the issues at hand. You two have not been debating the topic rather you have been arguing about something that is beside the point. Do you guys really even disagree about the your stance of the OP? Either way lets please be civil.