Lancer advancements

[Dave]

Sometimes one advancement choice is meant to be a better choice in the majority of cases, with the other choice being better in only a few cases.

That way, average players always choose the 'obvious' choice, while truly skilled players will choose the obvious choice most of the time, but also recognize the occasions when the less obvious choice is actually better.

David

[Disto]

Sometimes one advancement choice is meant to be a better choice in the majority of cases, with the other choice being better in only a few cases.

That way, average players always choose the 'obvious' choice, while truly skilled players will choose the obvious choice most of the time, but also recognize the occasions when the less obvious choice is actually better.

David

Such as using the Paladin.

[Flametrooper]

Paladin isn't a "less obvious" choice, I almost always use it even if I'm not fighting all undead, because mobile healing rocks and it's sword still isn't too bad, it also has a good lance charge even if not as good as the G.K.

[specops]

Sometimes one advancement choice is meant to be a better choice in the majority of cases, with the other choice being better in only a few cases.

To be honest though, there's only one combination I'd ever use for a Lancer: strong resilient. Anything less is just too weak. And, even the strong resilient Lancers that I do get just languish on my recall list for the rest of the campaign. With only 50 base HP, they're a bit too weak to truly be useful.

I forgot to mention in my intial post that the Hussar would take -10% to all physical attacks over the Lancer, (so blade= 10%, pierce = -30%, impact = 20%). Besides, a 14-3 Charge attack isn't a significant improvement over a 12-3 Charge attack (it's actually weaker than 12-3 backed by level 3 leadership). The Hussar's ability to skirmish (and yes, probably take out any single unit on terrain under 50% defense) is balanced by the fact that a mere 3 Orcish Archers could take him out at Dawn/Twilight.

I just think that these advancements would make the Lancer a better and more interesting choice.

[kiet]

To be honest though, there's only one combination I'd ever use for a Lancer: strong resilient. Anything less is just too weak.

Doesn´t surprise me,resilient and strong are two popular traits together.

[Gobling]

my suggestion:

give lancer a new ability "critical strike".
it can make the target become "wounded".

wounded:

all the same with poison, except only triggered once. only can deal 8 damage.

optional:

if the target has less than 8 HP, the "wounded" status cause the unit dead.(exsanguine)

[Alks]

Lancer is good how is he now. I often choose him at MP games, and he's already nasty and useful with his damage and speed.

[Dragonking]

I think that there is everything 'OK' with a lancer.

[kiet]

Hmm...........Maybe a skirmising lancer is just too good?

[Alks]

Moreover, Lancer is more than good, especially in Fog MP maps, when (especially with quick) he can easily hide in the fog and in one charge take down nearly any unit(and sometimes even take safe position next turn).

With skirmish it would

a) be overpowered everything-killer
b) it would lose its uniquity

[Thrawn]

even in campaigns, lancers are useful--most notably EI, where you get permenant holy attacks, why level to a paladin when you can have one early, less expensive really scare skeleton masher?

I can't say in MP, because I don't use Loyalists--I think they are too wide-ranging, and thus less interesting to play as, (though better to play against).

[PsychoticKittens]

Actually, I've been working on a unit of this type, and even have sprites finished (Head redone!) Certain Aspects of the Stats have yet to be finished (such as XP because I have yet to work on that with any of my units) I'm just setting this in here as another idea.

Jouster (lvl 3)
HP: 55-65 (undecided)
Movement: 10
XP: (undecided)
description: In the Age of Kings Jousters were much like gladiators, fighting to the death with thier fellow riders. Starting off with a lance they would make a charge at thier opponent to remove him from his mount, once removed he would draw his sword, axe, or mace and charge at the Enemy for his kill.

Attacks:
Lance 14-3 *charge* pierce
Mace 12-3 impact

Resistance Changes from Lancer:
Blade 30%
Impact 40%
Pierce -40%


Just putting one of my Ideas into an already opened post (I'm making an era with more lvl 3's)

[Elvish_Star]

Tough I am a rother beginner Wesnoth player, I found the "capped at level 2" lancer quite lackluster compared to the knight.

A specific and funny idea could be to have the lancer require only 45 XP to level, thereby allowing very frequent max level advancements. The game Disciples II, which also uses branching upgrades paths for its units, often uses max level advancement speed as a balancing mechanism between unit choices.

[Baufo]

I think there is a logical explaination why Lancers don't get a level 3 unit. Although I don't know what the unit description is telling I have always thought that Lancers are horsemen that could not afford a Knight education so they are not trained so well and maybe also do not continue training so they can't become better as level 2. That is also why I do not like the idea of giving the Lancer leadership like it was suggested a few posts before.

But personally I always choose the Lancer, especially in MP games, because of his greater number of strikes not because he does more basic damage. (2 Strikes is always a question of good luck IMHO).

[Tmoiy]

[quote="Baufo"But personally I always choose the Lancer, especially in MP games, because of his greater number of strikes not because he does more basic damage. (2 Strikes is always a question of good luck IMHO).[/quote]

I actually prefer two strikes (with higher damage each hit) to three in a charging attack, even if the three-strike attack deals more damage overall. This is because I generally want the enemy dead in one strike, rather than having to hit multiple times and suffering the (doubled) retaliation. It's true, of course, that two-strike attacks are more luck-dependent, but you've got to deal with that irregardless.

On the actual topic at hand, I agree that having a level 3 lancer would be nice, so that he's at least a feasible alternative in campaigns.