Lancer advancements

specops · Post by **specops** » June 3rd, 2006, 8:46 am

I get the feeling that this will either be shot down because it's already proposed or because it's a proposal for Level 3 units which would rarely be used (only in campaigns)...but here it goes anyway.

I'd really like to see either one of two (or both?) advancements for the Lancer. I think EP may have suggested a Lancer Commander idea a while ago, a "Level 3" unit which would just be the Lancer (improved a little) leveled into another Level 2 unit with leadership.

I feel like both of these units would add even more diversity to the Horseman tree and make Lancers more palatable choices; right now no one in his right mind would ever choose a Lancer over a Knight.

Lancer Commander: The noblest Lancers have learned through their experience that their mere presence can often change the tide of battles. They have sacrificed personal advancement to focus on their skills of rallying troops when all seems lost. It is often said that a Lancer Commander in battle will be everywhere and nowhere at once, darting into the places where his troops need him most.

Level 2
HP: 55
Moves: 10
XP (to be leveled into this): 80
Leadership
Lance: 13-3 Pierce, Charge
Resistances are the same
Movement all the same

Alternate advancement
Hussar: Hussars have realized their value in cutting down fleeing infantry. Though they must wear lighter armor to do so, they can use the slightest gaps in lines to cut down the enemy wounded or seize enemy outposts. Many times, enemies of the Hussar have been surprised to appear behind enemy lines to wreak havoc.

Level 3
HP: 60
Moves: 10
XP (to be leveled into this): 80
Skirmisher
Lance: 14-3 Pierce, Charge
Resistances are the same, but Pierce is -30%
Movement all the same

Thoughts/comments/flames?

Post by **zookeeper** » June 3rd, 2006, 8:56 am

I agree that the lancer is a bit of a sad unit - I don't think I've ever chosen lancer over a knight, at least not in a campaign. Possibly once in multiplayer. So, it would be nice to have a lvl 3 advancement for it.

However, a skirmishing lancer sounds a bit too useful.

Not that I have specific suggestions myself.

kiet · Post by **kiet** » June 3rd, 2006, 9:05 am

I think itÃ‚Â´s quite nice to make an advancement for the Lancer,since it has always being unpopular in campaigns.
But skirmising is a bit dangerous donÃ‚Â´t you think?
Scary to have a 14-3(or 15-3 with strong) unit charging at your Mage Of Light!

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » June 3rd, 2006, 9:21 am

Wherever did the idea of leadership for the Lancer come from?

Regardless, we can now give level 2 leadership to the level 3 lancer. It would be kind of nice.

Post by **Noyga** » June 3rd, 2006, 9:32 am

Elvish Pillager wrote:Wherever did the idea of leadership for the Lancer come from?

TSG perhaps ?

highhole · Post by **highhole** » June 3rd, 2006, 9:38 am

And what does TSG mean?

Post by **irrevenant** » June 3rd, 2006, 11:13 am

I always considered the Lancer unpopular because it didn't have an L3 advance. Beefing it up won't help with that. [EDIT]

didn't read it properly. The point still mostly holds though: The Lancer is a useful specialist unit[/EDIT]

The Lancer still has its uses though; notably it is by far the fastest Loyalist unit and there is no faster unit in the game (though some units such as the gryphon are less hampered by terrain).

scott · Post by **scott** » June 3rd, 2006, 11:25 am

I turn intelligent horsemen into Lancers. They are damage machines that level up quickly into HP houses. No, they're not grand knights, but I don't feel bad about using them since they do have advantages over knights (like that extra attack!).

As for the L3 Lancer, I would say make it as an unofficial unit. As an official unit, no.

Ranger M · Post by **Ranger M** » June 3rd, 2006, 11:38 am

highhole wrote:And what does TSG mean?

The South Guard

Post by **torangan** » June 3rd, 2006, 12:12 pm

The Lancer is a branch which ends at level 2, this is very unlikely to change. It's a special branch and designed to be usefull only in very specific units. It's been known and intended when it got in that it would be used only very seldom.

Post by **Zhukov** » June 3rd, 2006, 12:23 pm

I've never considered Lancers weak. When I level a Horseman in multiplayer I always choose the lancer. They have a potential 72 damage, and that's not even counting possible time-of-day bonuses.

JW · Post by JW » June 3rd, 2006, 1:24 pm

Zhukov wrote:I've never considered Lancers weak. When I level a Horseman in multiplayer I always choose the lancer. They have a potential 72 damage, and that's not even counting possible time-of-dat bonuses.

100% with this quote. They deal 36 damage on DEFENSE - a Knight, 32. On offense, forget about it. The only time I'll take a Knight is if there are Woses around.

Jew unit · Post by **Jew unit** » June 3rd, 2006, 4:17 pm

Zhukov wrote:I've never considered Lancers weak. When I level a Horseman in multiplayer I always choose the lancer. They have a potential 72 damage, and that's not even counting possible time-of-day bonuses.

not to mention they have two more moves then a knight. although 8 less hp but since the chances of you leveling up a knight are slim in mp lancer probalby defintly has advantage

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » June 3rd, 2006, 5:07 pm

Knight: More hitpoints, a more frontloaded attack, a safer attack, availability of the Blade damage type, a much more powerful advancement.

Lancer: More total damage, more moves, reaches (a very weak) advancement quicker.

Personally, I've never much liked raw damage. On the other hand, the Knight is quite impressive.

Cuyo Quiz · Post by **Cuyo Quiz** » June 3rd, 2006, 6:01 pm

A lvl3 Lancer Commander (must change that adjective maybe), would be spiffing nice.

Giving leadership lvl2 may be a good idea, or rather just make the Lancer advance in another lvl2 with leadership and more hp. A fast unit with leaership may be a great overkill for Spearmen at day, though, but let's worry about that when everyone complains

.