Alright, I'll accept Foz's explanation.

However, this..

...Then you get smashed. As you should...
Seems way out of line to me. I don't know what your thinking Carl, but alot of us don't want balance We want Historical Accuracy. Thats why we're playing this game, for the historical effect. Of all the medieval units that ever existed, only two survived well into the age of gunpowder..do you know what those two are? Light Cavalry and Horse Archers. Muslim and Native American cultures used horse archers effectively long after the age of bows and swords had died off. This is purely due to the fact that a good horse archer is an extremely versatile and effective weapon. Why is it that they can take on mixed-arms armies? Because, unlike in the 20th century, mixed arms were not nearly as effective in the 14th century. It creates weak and strong spots, and a general has to constantly cover for one while striking with the other. Remembering the most of his troops are on foot, and can't move from point a to b quickly. The general has to reconfigure his army to take into account his enemy every single time he engages them. Whereas the leader of a HA horde knows what they have to do, they've done it a million times before, and they're going to do it again. You think europe was the only country fielding mixed arms? China did too, and they got stomped by Mongolia. Rome was reknowned for their mixed armies. The Huns made them look like fools. Little Bighorn was suppose to be the battle to break the back of indian power...and we know that isn't exactly what happened..

I'd say of all of europes armys, the only one that could effectively counter a powerful HA army at its prime is that of Englands. Not because they fielded mixed arms, but because their longrange longbows and bodkin arrows would make short work of the shorter ranged, light armored cav archers. (Indeed, in a battle between spain and England, Longbowmen made a superior army of jinettes into a shooting gallery.)

Anyway, I feel that the current dominance that a strong army of Mixed HA(heavy/light) is justified. They rightfully are one of the most fearsome, and expensive, armies to be used on the battlefield. The Byzantines, Mongols and Turks rely on their horse archers almost exclusively for cavalry.

This is not to say cav archers are a noob-tube weapon that makes any noob a good player. It takes alot of skill and finnesse to use HA.

Nope, the only time I’ve ever fought against HA on the battlefield was those tests furthar up the thread.
Perhaps your lack of experience with them is the primary reason you don't know this. In fact, Carl, until you've actually played a campaign as one of the HA heavy nations, I really think you ought not be denouncing HA as unbalanced. You've never dealt with the cost, and micromanaging, that it takes to field a effective HA army. I kinda wish Orda Khan would get involved in this post. He's having his beloved mongol HA neutered even moreso then they already are..


P.S. sorry for going sort of off topic. I know this thread is suppose to be about a bug, not discussing the finer points of medieval warfare. To bring it in line with this topic; I would just like to reiterate that game balance is not what all of us want. If you reallllly feel that HA and other units are overpowered in multiplayer, increase their price. Don't neuter their abilities, as for the first time they've been realisticly modeled.