Lancer advancements

[scott]

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.

I have learned to love my lancer. Quick, intelligent is THE combination because he's almost as mobile as a silver mage and with AMLA he will eventually get more HP than a strong, resilient lancer on long campaigns. Strong, intelligent is another great combination. The Lancer should never get a L3 advancement. He is overly strong because he was never intended to get a L3 (3 charge attacks >12 each? Holy cow). What if he could lead just other mounted units? I think it's possible in WML now.

Edit: his leadership animation should have a little word bubble pop up saying, "CHARGE!"

[FleshPeeler]

Not that I play Loyalists in MP (although I'll probably start experimenting with the other races soon), I can easily sum up my likelihood of choosing which advancement. It depends entirely on how close the leveling horseman is to my enemy.

Knight: I'll pick this if the majority of the fighting is happening near my base or anywhere before halfway between. The Knight has better defense and more HP, so if I'm in this situation I need a beefy unit that I can reliably keep alive.

Lancer: If I've breached the halfway point between my base and my enemy's, this is the unit I will pick. Its high speed and high damage are more favorable when I'm trying to push forward.

Leadership on a Lancer doesn't seem to work. Lancer was made for long-distance kills. Unless you have other Horsemen around it, the Lancer is going to be isolated. Adding Leadership would dissuade a player from using him to his best ability. However, I've always felt that Lancer was lacking because it had no L3, especially considering that Knight is one of the only L2 advancements that have different branches to choose from.

I like the Jouster idea (and I love the sprite! Might need work on the mask though, it looks slightly Orcish), however I'm not sure modifying resistances is necessary. It's a level 3 unit. They're supposed to be bad-ass. Not overwhelmingly bad-ass, but still tough to begin with. Allowing a level 3 to be killed by three archers is like handing over 24 XP to one of your enemy's units on a silver platter. That's not a risk I'm ever willing to take!

[MrGrendel]

I choose lancer over knight quite frequently. You buy horsemen for the same purpose at which the lancer excels. Speed, and the ability to trample melee-weak units quickly. If you find your lancers too weak, you may need more tank units in your army composition, such as heavy infantry, or even the somewhat more durable cavalry or strength-in-numbers spearmen.

On the other hand, if I had to pick an advancement that made sense, and made the lancer more appealing for the long-term investment, I might consider giving him a well-increased defense rating on grassland, and a slight decrease on the roughest of terrains. As they specialize in swift hit and run tactics, they become more and more evasive on terrain that allows them to maneuver, and more vulnerable on terrain that slows them down.

[Kel]

What if he could lead just other mounted units? I think it's possible in WML now.

Edit: his leadership animation should have a little word bubble pop up saying, "CHARGE!"

I really like this idea. I think it'd be very much in flavor and wouldn't unbalance the lancer, if his other stats remained the same (maybe a little more HP). You'd want maybe one or two or these, sort of like the Paladin. It would be balanced by its relative vulnerability as a lvl3, and also the OMGWTF damage of a lancer's charge becomes comparable to a Grand Knight, so no imbalance there either.