Lance attacks too strong?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I was wondering if anyone else finds the lance attacks of cavalry to be too strong. As it is in my game, cavalry types wielding the kontos, xyston, or similar type underhand lances or spears seem to fare much better then cavalry using a melee weapon such as a sword or axe or those with overhand spears.

I decided to look up the unit stats to find out why that might be. The typical lance wielding unit has a low attack, id say on average a 3 or 4. Their secondaries are usually around a 9 depending on the weapon. However, all underhand lances have the AP attribute as well as having a lethality rating of 0.3 at least the highest of any melee weapon in the game AFAIK. What I've noticed is that units such as Hetairoi or Brihentin shouldn't even bother switching to their secondaries.

Take for example Hetairoi who have lance attack of 5 with AP and lethality 0.38!!!!!. Their secondary cavalry sword has an 11 attack with AP but lethality of only 0.11. Or how about Brihentin. Their lance attack is a 4 but is AP and has lethality of 0.33. Their secondary should be the deadly celtic longsword which sadly has a 9 attack with no AP and lethality of .225. Now I understand that lethalities for the weapons are standard depending on weapon type. However, I feel as if the secondary attack ratings should be raised in order to justify cavalry switching to them after engaging in melee. It doesn't make sense for a cavalry man to sit in melee with a long, unwieldly pole without a fraction of the range of movement he would have if he were to drop it and pull out his sword, axe, or mace. This is doubly important for overhand spear cavalry who have no AP spear and as such, seem more or less useless against infantry and lance cavalry. Sure some have secondary AP weapons but again, their lethalities are low compared to lances. For sake of comparison, the Eastern Medium Cavalry has an overhand spear attack of 8 with lethality of 0.15 and no AP. They are useless on the charge and mostly so in melee with the spear. Their secondary is somewhat better as their axe has a 7 attack with AP and 0.165 lethality. Still impotent against lance cavalry in a standstill melee.

Note I am not talking about the charge, only about their performance in melee after said charge.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, lances are the slowest melee weapons in the game... If that is of any consolation to you.

[Ibrahim]

lances are, if anything, very strong, but far from overpowered. the lethality, though high, is balanced by a low primary attack, and a slow animation. you only need to look at the stats of a cavalryman, say Hetairoi, to see that. the secondary weapon is in fact a lower lethality, and higher primary attack.

the entire point of a lance to to create shock, not fight hand to hand, so everytime you charge, always, always, always use Alt+rightclick.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

lances are, if anything, very strong, but far from overpowered. the lethality, though high, is balanced by a low primary attack, and a slow animation. you only need to look at the stats of a cavalryman, say Hetairoi, to see that. the secondary weapon is in fact a lower lethality, and higher primary attack.

the entire point of a lance to to create shock, not fight hand to hand, so everytime you charge, always, always, always use Alt+rightclick.

I do notice the stats. But the animation isn't that much slower that it matters. Also, I've noticed that when equipping a sword, axe, etc. cavalry attack animations seem to be more disrupted then with holding the lance. The problem, in my mind, seems to intensify with the addition of chevrons. With four chevrons and a weapon upgrade, Hetairoi have a 10 lance attack. Their secondary is up to 16 but is no longer double the lance attack. The 10 lance with 0.38 lethality, even with slower animations seems to chew through infantry faster than the kopis with 16 attack and 0.11 lethality. Maybe its just me, but I hardly ever ask my cavalry to switch weapons.

Another question on top of this. Why is the lance AP? If the sarrissa isn't, why the xyston or kontos? Does it have to do with the success of the charge?

[Foot]

We cannot have different stats for when the lance is used in a charge and when it is used in normal melee. So that we didn't have to use overpowered mass numbers for the cavalry units (so that they cause people to fly and break up dense formations) we gave the lances AP.

In EBII this problem will be resolved as primary weapons cannot be used by cavalry in melee after the charge. They all change.

Foot

[Ibrahim]

I do notice the stats. But the animation isn't that much slower that it matters.

yes, but every split-second really matters in combat-testing with units by me reaveals a drop in casualties in melee as opposed to those who went in using the lance for melee, depending on unit type and the type of enemy. Its part of the reason I don''t tell my brother about it in mp-and so far, I haven't lost a cavalry fight with him (or any battle againt him in EB for that matter), or took heavy casualities in relation to his forces.

Also, I've noticed that when equipping a sword, axe, etc. cavalry attack animations seem to be more disrupted then with holding the lance.

maybe, but its irrelevent-all that matters is the speed and attack distance of the animation, plus the stats in the edu. swords are still faster than lances from all accounts..

The problem, in my mind, seems to intensify with the addition of chevrons. With four chevrons and a weapon upgrade, Hetairoi have a 10 lance attack. Their secondary is up to 16 but is no longer double the lance attack. The 10 lance with 0.38 lethality, even with slower animations seems to chew through infantry faster than the kopis with 16 attack and 0.11 lethality. Maybe its just me, but I hardly ever ask my cavalry to switch weapons.

well, that should reflect the fact that cavalry gets better at the charge with experience-and the fact that the engine ads points to attack and charge in a non-proportional way. and while they may chew through the enemy "better" (not really by much), they will take heavier casualties in proportion to melee. am I right to assume that your cavalry typically takes some beating if the enemy isn't broken by the charge?

and besides, isn't the sword attack, according to your stats here, still better?

Another question on top of this. Why is the lance AP? If the sarrissa isn't, why the xyston or kontos? Does it have to do with the success of the charge?

I think foot answered this one perfectly.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

maybe, but its irrelevent-all that matters is the speed and attack distance of the animation, plus the stats in the edu. swords are still faster than lances from all accounts..

Well it does matter if animations are disrupted. If a unit spends more of its time dodging and fending off attacks, they are spending less time landing blows of their own. Lance animations are devoid of defensive animations, only having offensive ones. I feel like that would negate the slower animations which I totally agree the lances are.

well, that should reflect the fact that cavalry gets better at the charge with experience-and the fact that the engine ads points to attack and charge in a non-proportional way. and while they may chew through the enemy "better" (not really by much), they will take heavier casualties in proportion to melee. am I right to assume that your cavalry typically takes some beating if the enemy isn't broken by the charge?

Well normally I try not to leave cavalry in melee against infantry unless there is a strong chance doing so will break them shortly. I find that cavalry die equally quickly whether using lance or sword/axe/mace. Differences being that with lances they keep the enemy in front of them while with secondaries, they can strike at all sides yet are more keen to move deeper into enemy formations further exposing them.

and besides, isn't the sword attack, according to your stats here, still better?

The attack is better meaning that it overcomes the defense of a unit more often. However the significantly lower lethality means that a much lower percentage of the successful attacks kills the unit. Think about it like this. Celtic longswords have a .225 lethality compared to .11 for a kopis. More than double the longswords blows that overcome the defense rating kill the foe but kopis compensates with AP meaning that by halving armor, it more often overcomes defense, especially against heavily armored opponents. So yes, the lower attack makes the lance less likely to hit against the defender even with AP, but gives it a very good chance to kill when it is indeed successful.

Mostly a matter of opinion though. I'm a sucker for high lethality weapons so I prefer the lances. Theres not that much of a difference, I was just wondering if anyone else felt this way about lances too.

Thank you Foot for your response. Besides the charging issue, I also figured lances would need to be at least decently powerful for units which feature missiles as their primary but also are capable of charging. Because the engine doesn't allow for a tertiary weapon to switch to after the charge, they shouldn't be left with an impotent lance for melee.

In terms of switching to secondaries immediately after the charge in EBII, I loved that feature in the vanilla M2:TW and I can't wait to see it implemented.

[satalexton]

Semi-OT, but how much would a kontos weigh? The loading screen says' it literally means 'barge-pole' in greek....