Replace Light Cavalry with Steppe Lancer?

Steppe Lancer gives one thing Cavalry Archer doesn’t which is countering Skirmisher.

It can be achieved by removing 1 melee range and giving charge attack like Coustillier.

I am not so sure about that. Coustillier is also an extremely snowbally unit.
I think it can be achieved without removing the range.

Well, that’s why people usually add some melee meatshield to their cav archers. Steppe lancers are their own meatshield which makes tem more vulnerable in these lategame scenarios.

What I stated is that they replace the LIGHT CAVALRY and HUSSAR, which means there are still the Scout Cavalry in the feudal age. Why do people never carefully read what I stated?

This change is essentially an enhancement and makes more use of Lancer’s assets.
The replacement of the Winged Hussars is definitely more beneficial than the original Hussars, as is the use of lances by the Light Cavalry and Hussars.

I don’t think the Lancers’ problem has anything to do with snowballing and being an army addition.

Once a group of Lancers are more powerful than the Knights, the Knights will no longer be used.
Once the Lancers are more economical than the Light Cavalry, the Light Cavalry will no longer be used.
Whether it’s enhancing Lancers or making Lancers more cost-effective, it’s just a matter of swapping out the snubbed units from Lancers to others because they’re all still for the same purpose.

My suggestion for Lancers to replace Light Cavalry and Hussars is based on the premise that they are unlikely to acquire new uses that are different from Knights and Light Cavalry. Of course, they wouldn’t be in their current predicament if they could get a new use where they would no longer have to compete with Knights and Light Cavalry, for example they specialize in countering Pikemen and the like.

Btw, I seriously oppose them becoming another cavalry with the charge mechanic. This should be the identity exclusively for Burgundian UU. Once they are owned by common units, some community users will begin to pursue other units such as the Knights and claim that the knights in the real world would charge as an argument.

So? The exact same “identity” pilfering thing happen to the Huskarl in the Conquerers expansion with the Meso Civs being given an unique infantry unit that fuifills the exact same basic role as it, but the Huskarl remained distinct thanks to it’s unique cost (56-52F and 28-26 Gold), the other different roles it fuifilled (Anti-Building, now Anti-Eagle Warrior) and the bonuses avaliable to it (Perfusion, Team Bonus). If anything it reinforced the identity of Goths, as they are the only civ in the game to possess a Eagle Warrior-esq Infantry unit alongside HCs, Bombards, KTs and Hussars.

There’s no reason it can’t wouldn’t be the same for Burgundians as with the change they would be the only Civ in the game to have the combination of: Bombards, cheap upgrade Paladins, HCs, Bombard Towers, Flemish Militia alongside a Lancer-esq unit (that could have other unique qualities to it, like higher armour), but bad CA

Once they are owned by common units, some community users will begin to pursue other units such as the Knights and claim that the knights in the real world would charge as an argument.

As already stated before we are already down this slippery slope and things are still perfectly fine, and why is it even bad in the first place for community users to request such changes? The reason why the Coustillier even has its gimmick in the first place is because of those exact arguments and it being an new and interesting directiion for the game to go in

I do not think so.

The Eagle and Elite Eagle are the equivalent units to the Knight and Cavalier, not to the Huskarl. The Eagle’s advantage over the archer unit is basically just the same as that of the Knight, but because it is an infantry, people generally compare it with swordsmen and spearmen, so this advantage is particularly conspicuous. The Elite Eagles still can be killed by the Arbalesters in the imperial age like the Cavaliers, which is at least much easier than Elite Huskarl obviously. The Huskarl’s amazing pierce armor and bonus against buildings make it fundamentally different from the Eagle. If the common infantry’s performance against arrows is like a piece of paper, Eagle’s would be like a book, and Huskarl’s would be like an steel plate. It is unreasonable to view the performance of the book as a copy of the exact same “identity” of the steel plate.

Moreover, if the identity of the Coustillier and of the so-called charging Lancer must be differentiated through other parts of the civ’s tech tree, it means that there is no difference between the two per se. In other words, one of them is deprived of its unique identity by the other.

Yeah, the Knights can charge, the Hussars can charge, the Camel Riders can charge, and the Battle Elephants can charge. After the stable units, the Cataphracts can charge, the War Elephants can charge, the Mamelukes can charge, the Tarkans, Magyar Huszars, Boyars, Konniks, Leiciai and Keshiks all can charge.

In the end, every cavalry should be able to charge since they did have charges in reality.
The unique identity of Coustillier? Not important.

1 Like

Actually, eagles would be like a large layer of specially built cotton armor :wink:.

They are like a book while the common inf are like a paper.
The book is thicker and heavier than the paper, but still clearly weaker than the steel sheet.
It is about the in-game statistic value, nothing to do with what they equipped in reality.

Yeah. It is tough to balance them ideally. But we can do the best. Not completely removing either of them.
The problem is Hussar line is a bit too versatile and overpower in late game as trash unit. I think we need to nerf them slightly to make semi-trash cavalry also viable.

Also don’t forget that we already have civ replacing hussar upgrade with their own Unique upgrade (Poles/Lithuanians). Just make Steppe lancer another version of Winged Hussar is unoriginal and kill diversity.

I am not an expert on history, but isn’t Turks also originated from Eurasian steppe? Also Tatars/Cumans are also considered subgroup of Turkish people. Turks are mostly related to Steppe lancer civ (Tatars/Cumans) other than Mongols. We don’t know much about Huns. They might be originated from Eurasia steppe but the evidence is scarce and their main occurrence is in Europe, not Eurasia. And they are not really related to Mongols or Cumans/Tatars.

Hussar line’s problem is totally another matter. Nothing to do with this thread.
And again, no so-called “semi trash”.
If it does not cost gold, it belongs to the trash unit.
If it does cost gold, it is not the trash unit, and it cannot be more economical than Hussar whatever regardless of how the power of Hussar is adjusted.

This is a cognitive problem. When a store claims to sell 10 kinds of fruits but consumers can only buy 3 kinds, and another store claims to sell 9 kinds of fruits but consumers can buy 4 kinds, the latter is definitely more “diverse” in the eyes of consumers than the former.

If the changes are applied, the Lancer’s assets can appear in the game more often, which will actually diversify the game more than when the Lancer is ignored as a separate unit as if it never existed.

I stated that if the Lancer is countered by the archer unit, and specifically counters the Pikeman as well as other infantry in turn, so that it has an advantage and specialty that cannot be replaced by Light Cavalry and Knights, then it will definitely be valued and used, and get rid of the current predicament and problem without any further changes. But my suggestion for this thread is based on the premise that such things are unlikely to happen.

The in-game Turks mainly represent the Azeris, Seljuks and iconic Ottomans, who are all in the West Asian region south of the Caucasus. If you wanna talk about the Turkic peoples in the Eurasian steppe in the Central Asia, they are represented by the Tatars and sometimes the Cumans in the current game. So that the Turkic peoples in the steppe are already having the Lancer while the ones out of the steppe not having. That is all, it does not need change.

The Huns fit. Whether or not they were related to the Xiongnu people, the Mongols, Cumans and Tatars, it is still believed that they originated from the Eurasian steppe and marched to Germany, Gaul and Rome. At the very least it is certain that they came from or passed through the Pannonia Basin, the westernmost point of the Eurasian steppe. The Avars, the former rulers of the Basin, are also represented by the Huns in the game.

Will be very hard to balance as LC line costs only food. A trash cavalry with 1 range will be OP most of the time. You may try replacing camel tbh. Need some big changes though.

What’s your proposal then, remove the Scout line from the civs that have SL and replace them with them?
You have to make them cost only food and reduce the overall stats
Could work tho

No thank you. the divercity in cav is brilliant for steppe peoples.

No, their real diversity is as same as those settled peoples and even worse than Southeast Asians.
The status quo is that having Lancer is the same as not having it.

Any suggestions to help leverage the Lancer asset are good. Making it a unique upgrade is bound to allow it to be used more, even if it’s different from the original. Or, like my second suggestion, make it able to counter infantry, especially spearmen, but countered by archers, giving it new features to get rid of competition with knights and light cavalry, making it worth using in more situations.

And those common suggestions like just buffing the stats or even making it chargeable, IMHO, will just keep it going in an ignored situation, or go back to the OP’s situation in the past.

That is probably true. But I also think new SL is still unexplored.