Why oh Why did I level up Lancers?

[Raemon]

Well, the first leveling of the average Horseman takes 44 XP, and the leveling of a Knight takes 120. To get a Grand Knight you need 164 XP, which is almost enough for four lancers (176 XP).

So really we should compare the Grand Knight to about fourish Lancers. Don't things start to look more even?

[Velensk]

IMHO the "lancer can't get lvl3 " is one of the sacred cows of Wesnoth, but it is one of the more frustrating ones. A lvl 3 lancer is one of the more frequently contributed ideas, which is often rejected.

A lvl 3 lancer wouldn't affect multiplayer balance. It would make lancer a viable choice for campaignes, which it currently isn't. The fact that the lancer is always compared to the grand knight instead of the knight proves the point.

I think most players find rather unsatisfying to have a unit choice that is almost alws wrong.

A level 3 lancer doesn't need to be terrifying, and I agree that it might be a more average lvl 3 unit.

Something like 14-3 , 60 HP and either 50% plains defense, a better pierce resist or leadership

And you think that would not be terrifiying? If you realy don't then you need to take a closer look at the unit you proposed. Keep in mind the high mobility and charge attack and daytime modifiers. If my quick calculation is correct then the non-strong version of this unit would have 35-3 damage at day with 9 (or 10) movment points. Then you also want high plains defence in addition to cavalry resistances which you seem to want to boost by making it so that pikeman don't rip through them as quickly which is wrong, charging horse unit should be vunerable to walls of spears, pikes, or other pointy poll-arms. Lvl 3 leadership on any unit this mobile could have terrifying effect you could give a entire line of lvl 1 units +50% damage or a line of lvl 2s +25% damage (the same advantage you get for attacking at a favored time of day) and that modifyer stacks with TOD advantages.

As I said I think lancers are a viable choice in campains. I think that this lvl 3 unit would take away their role as a specialist unit.

[TL]

I think 14-3 attack and 60 HP by itself would make a L3 lancer a viable choice against GKs, since they've got 10 MP compared to 7. Lancers are already one of the most powerful L2 units to compensate for lack of an L3, so they don't need much of an upgrade to turn into a solid L3.

Not that I'm really sure it's necessary, though. One thing I think has been neglected so far is that almost all campaigns have at least one level 3 leader available which can benefit lancers but not grand knights/paladins, so you're potentially looking at 15-3 vs. 15-2/17-2. That is huge.

[nebula955]

in real battle SPEARMEN dont pwn knights, etc. only PIKEMEN. except here the spearmen have this firststrike thing that is kind of annoying...but then again wesnoth isnt about realism

[playtom]

It would not have to be overly unbalancing. Even just giving some extra HP would make them better. Perhaps Leadership? Bump their attack up a bit sure, but maybe 13-4 instead of 16-3. Better chance to kill, but less of a one shot. Maybe even an extra MP, but 10 is already potent.

Or here would be the most wonderous thing of all...just add skirmish. That would be a Lvl3 unit worthy of the name.

Personally I do not understand why all Units do not have a full advancement path. makes no sense to freeze them. But then again it is likely a balance issue.

lancers would be definitely overpowered if they were to lvl up to lvl 3. just think about it, around 10 extra hp, stronger attacks(i would go no more than 16x3) maybe more resistance and defense bonus. plus with one abilities such as skirimisher(way overpowering) or leadership(leadership on horse?), it's a rather bold move, and making them much better choice over grand knights in most situation. all default units in wesnoth are well balanced, some units only lvl up to a specific lvl only because they serve a special and unique purpose. and sometimes on a lvl, where the units is mostly perfected and making them lvl up does nothing more but giving them extra HP and stronger attacks(this usually applies on normal units which have counterparts such as spearman or bowman), they would not be given another advancement. it's all part of which to making the game more interesting and unique.

[Martinus]

Or they just wouldnt be as unique as they are now. Long live lancers!

[F8 Binds...]

I take the stand that there is no reasons for adding a L3 lancer great enough (or any at all) to actually permit doing it. In fact, it does take away from the original feel of the unit. Also, members of the community that aren't developers have almost no say in development. Try to keep this in mind. Trying to support senseless changes like making a L3 Lancer, Elvish Star are likely to screw with your image and classify you in categories nobody wants to be in. L2 Lancers Already do more damage than any L3 unit OR L4 unit in the entire game. Yes, it does more damage than the Great Mage, Elvish Sylph... Royal Guard, etc. It even beats the Nightgaunt. If that doesn't say anything, I doubt anything will.

[Martinus]

Trying to support senseless changes like making a L3 Lancer, Elvish Star are likely to screw with your image and classify you in categories nobody wants to be in.

Stop being elitist!!! For &%^( sake how can saying that "a unit should have lvl 6" screw someone's "image"? What's this, some kind of "Great Elder Community of Wesnoth" ? Man

[Lorbi]

L2 Lancers Already do more damage than any L3 unit OR L4 unit in the entire game. Yes, it does more damage than the Great Mage, Elvish Sylph... Royal Guard, etc.

first this is not always true
e.g at night the great mage does more dmg than the lancer

second it is meaningless to compare maximum damage possible
when you want to compare the damage units do than compare the EV
like: greate mage - 4 strikes at 70% each = 2.8 ( =most likely 3 ) strikes at 16 dmg
lancer - 3 strikes at ( suppose average ) 50% each = 1.5 strikes at 24 dmg
makes 36 ( either 24 or 48 ) for the lancer and 44.8 ( most likely to be 48 ) for the great mage
well .. the great mage is L4 and the lancer only L2

so i think there really is no need for a L3 lancer ( that would have to be stronger than the L4 mage )
the lancer is fine the way he is

[F8 Binds...]

Trying to support senseless changes like making a L3 Lancer, Elvish Star are likely to screw with your image and classify you in categories nobody wants to be in.

Stop being elitist!!! For &%^( sake how can saying that "a unit should have lvl 6" screw someone's "image"? What's this, some kind of "Great Elder Community of Wesnoth" ? Man

First of all, what the heck? I was trying to give the guy some advice. I tried doing such and... nevertheless, I looked like an idiot for trying to support senseless changes. I don't know about you, but surely everybody in their mind would get an entirely different image of you when you say stuff like that. They already would think of you differently... I have no clue why you responded like that. In fact, I am irritated.

first this is not always true
e.g at night the great mage does more dmg than the lancer

second it is meaningless to compare maximum damage possible
when you want to compare the damage units do than compare the EV
like: greate mage - 4 strikes at 70% each = 2.8 ( =most likely 3 ) strikes at 16 dmg
lancer - 3 strikes at ( suppose average ) 50% each = 1.5 strikes at 24 dmg
makes 36 ( either 24 or 48 ) for the lancer and 44.8 ( most likely to be 48 ) for the great mage
well .. the great mage is L4 and the lancer only L2

so i think there really is no need for a L3 lancer ( that would have to be stronger than the L4 mage )
the lancer is fine the way he is

Actually, your math is slightly flawed- Granted, I didn't say the lancer had very consistent damage, or did more average damage than those other units. So why'd you show this math like I did? Average defense is grass- 40%. That means a lancer is likely to get two hits in. That's 48 damage. Oh, that's the same as the great mage!

Also, your comparison of the great mage at night is flawed- it gives advantage to the great mage. It's like comparing a spearman to a grunt at night. Oh, the grunt does way more damage! Why is that a bad comparison? It's situational.

[Elvish Vanquisher]

If you think about it the knight is worse than the lancer but the lancer is about the same as than the knight or palidin (well depends if you want to use the palidin for only undead). The lancer is good at taking down stray units. A level 3 lancer i think would be bad as it would have to have 4 attacks with lance to make it worth leverling up so then you have something like 15-4 which could take out a lv 1 unit 1 hit this would be so unfair and the level 3 lancer would be hard to kill without making a big sacrifice

Stop being elitist!!! For &%^( sake how can saying that "a unit should have lvl 6" screw someone's "image"? What's this, some kind of "Great Elder Community of Wesnoth" ? Man

First of all, what the heck? I was trying to give the guy some advice. I tried doing such and... nevertheless, I looked like an idiot for trying to support senseless changes. I don't know about you, but surely everybody in their mind would get an entirely different image of you when you say stuff like that. They already would think of you differently... I have no clue why you responded like that. In fact, I am irritated.

I would totally agree with you f8

[Martinus]

First of all, what the heck? I was trying to give the guy some advice. I tried doing such and... nevertheless, I looked like an idiot for trying to support senseless changes. I don't know about you, but surely everybody in their mind would get an entirely different image of you when you say stuff like that. They already would think of you differently... I have no clue why you responded like that. In fact, I am irritated.

I tried to support some changes too, but nobody told me "hey, dont say that because they will look at you differently". People just said like "you're new, you don't know the basics of the game" and stuff like this. Nobody ever told me that someone will look at me differently, or that my image will be screwed. Because what "image" could get screwed? I think, we all should have the right to be "newbies with senseless ideas" at some point just to maintain the feeling that "being a newbie is allright".

[Elvish Vanquisher]

I would agree with you but there is a difference between newbie and causing offence what he said was not a newbie thing, he was trying to cause offence so he is in the wrong

Can we start talking about lancers again or this will get locked.

[F8 Binds...]

Suggesting a change that everybody disagrees with is likely to heck. I suggested he doesn't do it again. Problem? No Problem. "Noobs" as we call them have no right to suggest changes to a nonexistent problem. Black and White thinking like "Oh, Lancers just suck in campaigns. I want a L3 lancer. It's stats will make it more powerful than any other unit in the entire game. By making a L3 lancer... blahblahblah." "Unit x needs y because of z." I have to take the harsh stand here. Frankly, people DO look down on people that think and act like that. Sorry. Therefore, I suggested he didn't do that again. I can remember countless times I wanted changes to the game...


"Oh, the glider should have more hp and a better ranged attack, even better defense."


"Yeah, I think the Shadow isn't that great of a unit. Therefore I want it to have a 6-3 Dread eye ranged cold attack."


And people did look down on me. Simple as that. I was absolutely embarrassed. Perhaps I could have worded it better- that is not the point. And this little argument is driving the thread off-topic. Continue it to PM's.

[Martinus]

I'm sorry because people looked down on you. I don't know, I don't take it as seriously if people on forums look down upon me, and neither do I take proposition of pointless changes to the game seriously. That's a very healthy way to reading forums, you don't get offended by anything. Try it now! Anyways I totally agree that lancers shouldn't get lvl 3, 5 or even 10. They are perfect as they are.