Give Leadership Ablility to Lancers ?

[PingPangQui]

I would like to see having lancers with leadership ability. The objective of this is to have a fast unit, being able to lead horseman on bigger maps. The lancer is rather a rousing unit as it is indicated in its
unit description, thus leadership would pretty much fit this unit too regarding this point.

A similar idea has been proposed before (see also discussion June 2006).

Regarding Multiplayer: there wouldn't be much an effect, imho (I've hardly seen a horseman leveling there).

Regarding campaigns: it would add some more flavour to this branch of the horseman tree making this unit more interesting. However, it wouldn't change too much since the lancers leadership would only effect units below level 2.

[Vendanna]

I would like to see having lancers with leadership ability. The objective of this is to have a fast unit, being able to lead horseman on bigger maps. The lancer is rather a rousing unit as it is indicated in its
unit description, thus leadership would pretty much fit this unit too regarding this point.

A similar idea has been proposed before (see also discussion June 2006).

Regarding Multiplayer: there wouldn't be much an effect, imho (I've hardly seen a horseman leveling there).

Regarding campaigns: it would add some more flavour to this branch of the horseman tree making this unit more interesting. However, it wouldn't change too much since the lancers leadership would only effect units below level 2.

I actually would prefer the leadership being on the cavalry man part, that only has advancement for dragoon and would be more interesting that the horseman seer power.

After all, you don't use see people use the spear to liderate the charge but a sword pointing where you want it to go (at least on movies)

I still would prefer a spearhead hability than a leadership one, so if the unit shows like this

Code: Select all

                                   / \
                                 /     \

In which each | is an unit and is what it allows it to get the bonus like backstab, its what gives the cavalry its punch, because you loose the advantage of cavalry if you get stooped in the charge and cannot move freely.

[Erk]

Leadership on a unit with a move like that of a dragoon or especially a lancer is a recipe for disaster. The unit can grant its bonus to the entire front line of the battlefield!

Why do so many people hate on the lancer? Those guys kick serious butt.

[thespaceinvader]

I like the idea of a spearhead ability - so if a unit, in this case a knight or lancer - has a friendly unit to its southeast and southwest when attacking north (or equivalent directions) it would get some form of attack bonus. Maybe be able to use charge with less of a penalty (+25% damage on counter rather than +50%, parhaps...).

I don't like lancers primarily because i play campaigns and i've yet to find a place in any campaign i've played campaign where a lancer's more useful than a knight...

[MDG]

There was a more general thread on mounted units with leadership just over a month ago. Worth taking a look at.

[Blarumyrran]

Why do so many people hate on the lancer? Those guys kick serious butt.

in normal mp, you cant use them much because theyre level 2, and nobody recruits that many horsemen to get some to level. in RPG mp you cant choose them as your character. in campaigns not being able to get to level 3 makes them worse than knights(horseman & its upgrades, with the exception of paladin, are good at finishing off units, which means they will get a LOT of xp, and you wouldnt want to waste it on AMLA now would you). so they are a rare unit.

i like the OP proposal. loyalist have currently no leadershipped recruitable units, but they are the one and only faction youd expect military discipline from. however, i see as a problem that it doesnt fit their flavor at all. knights should have some royal attitude about them, as should paladins, as should maybe chavaliers, how does a less-civilized lancer have leadership instead of them?

as of the spearhead, i think its too complicated, and exactly such positions making you get less damage doesnt seem intuitive. KISS, ya know.

[thespaceinvader]

Fair point.

[Velensk]

I don't think it makes sense for the semi-suicidal thrill-seeking daredevil cavalry unit to have leadership.

[Edward V Riley]

I think it would actually make Lancers a worthwhile choice when upgrading. Otherwise, I tend to stick to knights due to their level 3 upgrades.

Granted, later on in the campaigns, the lancer would become obsolete as a level 2 leader can only affect level 1 units, but it's seemingly obsolete as it is now. However, if they could move up to Level 3 Queens(or kings) Lancer, then they would be of great use to the entire campaign.

The drawback to this is the Lancer's mobility. Most leaders can usually only affect the performance of 3 or 4 lesser units before their movement is gone. With the Lancer, it might be as high as 6 or 7 units.

The lancer definitely needs some improvement. To me, it's treated like the level 3 bandits, rogues, thugs, and poachers plus the Javelineer when considered for additional abilities. Meaning, it's considered almost a taboo subject to even consider.

[Erk]

Why do so many people hate on the lancer? Those guys kick serious butt.

in normal mp, you cant use them much because theyre level 2, and nobody recruits that many horsemen to get some to level. in RPG mp you cant choose them as your character. in campaigns not being able to get to level 3 makes them worse than knights(horseman & its upgrades, with the exception of paladin, are good at finishing off units, which means they will get a LOT of xp, and you wouldnt want to waste it on AMLA now would you). so they are a rare unit.

In MP, where one is never likely to see level 3, the lancer generally outpowers the knight should you get one ... and horsemen are one of the easier units to feed XP to if you don't just throw them away (which, at 23gp per, you shouldn't be doing).

In single player, the lancer is still capable of heavily augmenting a charge of grand knights, gryphon riders, and other heavies and fasties. They're easy to get and cheap to maintain, and in HttT I had about six of them that I could recall in a hurry - I levelled almost all of them in one mission near the beginning and they served me really well as needed through the whole campaign.

People just underestimate the lancer. It's an incredibly powerful unit, but it is not a frontliner. Leadership would make it far, far too effective.

As far as I'm concerned, Sergeants should be recruitable by Loyalists. But I don't know anything about how that would affect MP balance on the server, I only play MP at home with my girlfriend. I imagine it would wind up throwing a lot of stuff off.

[Kestenvarn]

After all, you don't use see people use the spear to liderate the charge but a sword pointing where you want it to go (at least on movies)

Even if this particular point is irrelevant to the subject, I really disagree with it. The spear is pretty iconic.

[Vendanna]

Even if this particular point is irrelevant to the subject, I really disagree with it. The spear is pretty iconic.

Of course, but you will probably see on a movie the leader porting a sword or similar than a spear.

Also, its harder to maneuver it in order to send signals to the troops, as far as I can see, if the Japanese used Tessen (war fan) as a way of send signals to the troops and not a spear is because its easier to do so.

Also, easier to do more "complex" signals in lesser time, with a spear what would yo do? pump it up to show "chaaaarge!" ok, but how you would tell "outflank them", Displace armies, retreat, etc... etc...

Between the spearhead I suggested is as complex/intuitive that backstab, and backstab is on mainline.

[Blarumyrran]

Between the spearhead I suggested is as complex/intuitive that backstab, and backstab is on mainline.

i was commenting on thespaceinvaders spearhead, because i didnt really understand what you meant. let suppose you meant the same:

BACKSTAB requires a friendly unit to be on the opposite side of the attacked unit. makes sense. you cant see behind your back.

SPEARHEAD requires 2 units to be next to the attacking unit, one tile away from the tile on the opposite side of the attacking unit from the attacked unit. alright, a bit un-newb-friendly (maybe not that relevant since its a lvl 2), but thats not the only thing, it also makes no sense that this position is somehow mystically better than having 2 units next to the attacking unit AND the attacked unit, or in TSI's example, attacking a unit north with friendly units to the northeast and northwest. maybe you can think up some reasons why it is better, but mainline abilities should be instantly obvious.

Even if this particular point is irrelevant to the subject, I really disagree with it. The spear is pretty iconic.

the only thing iconic with spear that comes to my mind is St. George Killing A Dragon, and 300(film). its a killing weapon, instead of a show weapon like sword.

As far as I'm concerned, Sergeants should be recruitable by Loyalists. But I don't know anything about how that would affect MP balance on the server, I only play MP at home with my girlfriend. I imagine it would wind up throwing a lot of stuff off.

in mp, sergeants wouldnt be worth their cost (20) as they currently are. their stats are awful per cost. their xp limit is over 30 iirc. if it was reduced to about 11, it would work. but maybe that would upset campaign balance... cant really tell.

[appleide]

SPEARHEAD requires 2 units to be next to the attacking unit, one tile away from the tile on the opposite side of the attacking unit from the attacked unit.

Why not just have 2 units adjacent and throw the other conditions away? Much simpler.

[thespaceinvader]

If you start on that, i could work up a number of similar abilities based on realistic formations - spearhead being a common knight attacking formation, such that all the lances go into enemies in a concentrated area, but very few of the horses are vulnerable.

If you go for two units either side (layout as for backstab, but with friendlies either side of a friendly, all three facing enemies) you could do something like shieldwall/hold the line, where they'd get extra defense, but if one of them died/was injured, they'd all lose defense. And it could stack right the way down a defensive line.

Except it's getting a LITTLE complex now. Just brainstorming really.