[mainline] Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Locked
WanderingHero
Posts: 169
Joined: May 30th, 2011, 2:03 pm
Location: Uk, London

[mainline] Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by WanderingHero »

I'm not sure what the proper tag is, so please excuse me.

I get the philosophy of Lancers in multiplayer , and they might work well there, where level 3s are harder to get and constant charging isn't such a liability.


In campaign mode, Lancers seem like absolute junk. The constant charging will make them easy to kill, and the fact they cannot promote absoultly cripples them in all but the shortest campaigns (might be worth using in Tale of 2 brothers or something...).

I don't know how to fix this. Maybe a CAMPAIGN only sword attack? Or a CAMPAIGN only promotion? Though I know the makers don't want them to be too much like Knights.

If I'm wrong about them, when are they good in campaign? A final level maybe, but I tend to get knights much earlier.

Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 3991
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by Velensk »

I suppose it escaped your notice that they do more total damage than a grand knight (IIRC a strong one tips in at 90 damage total at day) and have a more movement than any other loyalist cavalry unit, and a more reliable charge despite costing only a level 2 worth of upkeep?

Lancers make excelent assassins (especially combined with silver mages) due to their speed and killing power. They are also easier to support (upkeepwise) than the level 3 knights and can be given leadership more easilly (which makes them even more ridicules killers).

They don't need fixing, they are plenty useful as they are as long as you are looking for very specific roles rather than a more versitile one. What is more, giving them qualities that only work in campaigns is very un-KISS.

If there is one advancement choice that I think is definately skewd when it comes to campigns vs multiplayer it is revenant vs deathblade. In campaigns you might need/want the ability to get draugs but in multiplayer you'll rarely see an undead passing up the extra movement (something undead are generally short on) and strike for a few extra hitpoints.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."

User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9740
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by zookeeper »

And most importantly (IMO) they're easier to replace. Whenever a throwaway Horseman survives long enough to advance (and when I don't particularly need more Knights), I usually make a Lancer out of them and use them in situations where I don't want to risk other high-level units but where massive damage output is needed. If a Lancer dies then it's not a big deal as I can replace them by recruiting a Horseman and feeding them only a few higher-level kills; not so with a Grand Knight.

User avatar
doofus-01
Art Contributor
Posts: 3843
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:27 pm
Location: land of boot-licking, craven prostitutes posing as senators

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by doofus-01 »

Yeah, don't think of lancers as powerful heroes you don't want to lose. Think of them as cruise missiles (thanks, freeciv), or something like that - a tool in your arsenal/recall list for desperate times.
BfW 1.12 supported, but active development only for BfW 1.13/1.14: Bad Moon Rising | Trinity | Archaic Era |
| Abandoned: Tales of the Setting Sun
GitHub link for these projects

User avatar
Maiklas3000
Posts: 532
Joined: June 23rd, 2010, 10:43 am

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by Maiklas3000 »

Try taking a Lancer after you have about three Grand Knights, and then compare the predicted combat outcomes as you encounter the enemy. Often, you'll see the Lancer is pretty much worthless (like when it would surely die.) However, other times you'll find the Lancer is the most effective choice and be glad you had it.

I second the points about leadership and assassination. And slightly different than assassination is where your regular troops have the enemy leader surrounded but he's such a bad ass that you're having trouble killing him while avoiding being killed - so slow him if you can, wound him, and then send in the Lancer supported by your leader for the coup de grâce. (It's a waste of XP, though, so it's a last resort.)

You need to be a little careful about the traits for a unit advancing to Lancer. Quick and non-resilient is going to give you a very brittle Lancer. Better to go non-quick and resilient. Intelligent would be a big waste. Strong is very desirable, because you get 3 attacks at double damage, so the +1 for strong becomes like +6, a bigger benefit than any other unit gets from "strong".

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by Insinuator »

Maiklas3000 wrote:Strong is very desirable, because you get 3 attacks at double damage, so the +1 for strong becomes like +6, a bigger benefit than any other unit gets from "strong".
Unless Cuttlefish can be Strong...

User avatar
Skrim
Posts: 312
Joined: June 10th, 2009, 7:19 am

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by Skrim »

Two cents:
1. This should be in the Strategy & Tips forum, not the Ideas forum.
2. Cuttlefish benefit less from Strong because they lose strikes quite rapidly as they take damage.

WanderingHero
Posts: 169
Joined: May 30th, 2011, 2:03 pm
Location: Uk, London

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by WanderingHero »

Well I was suggesting Lancer's get fixed up, because I didn't understand how to use them, then it became a strategy and tips thread when people explained their proper usage (which I understand now, thanks)

Insinuator
Posts: 706
Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by Insinuator »

Skrim wrote:2. Cuttlefish benefit less from Strong because they lose strikes quite rapidly as they take damage.
Gah. Read more carefully.
Maiklas3000 wrote:Strong is very desirable, because you get 3 attacks at double damage, so the +1 for strong becomes like +6, a bigger benefit than any other unit gets from "strong".
I was contrasting numerical advantage of a +1 increase to 10 strikes (which is +10) to a +6 damage increase for Lancers.

But this is neither here nor there...

User avatar
Thrawn
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2047
Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
Location: bridge of SSD Chimera

Re: [mainline] Lancers suck!.... in Campaign

Post by Thrawn »

@Insinuator: so are they--the cuttlefish has swarm, so it will rarely get the full +10.

As the thread owner has said, his question/idea has been asked and answered, so I am locking this thread
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott

this goes for they're/their/there as well

Locked