Horse

[BloodTree]

Do any one ells think that horse on market is too expensive. I have to build each time horse stable to only have 1-3 horse for scouting it seems wrong to me.

[Krom]

Market horse cost is quite fair, it is even a bit too cheap if compared with tree trunks. (building 6 woodcutters and trading for horses is almost equally good as building farms and stables, where by intent it should be x2.5 worse)

[Lewin]

Horses are very slow to produce at the stables (and they cost 4 corn each), so they're expensive at the market because of that. As Krom says we're considering increasing their value at the market. If anybody else has an opinion about the horse's value please write about it.

[BloodTree]

6 gold ore would be sweet for one horse.
It`s not about how much you need play but when you need trade like 11stone for 1 wood it`s means you need 11 serfs to do that and its too much no point of market if you need much serfs to trade. Roads are blocked and other problems. It`s not right to me.

[Mulberry]

Do any one ells think that horse on market is too expensive. I have to build each time horse stable to only have 1-3 horse for scouting it seems wrong to me.

Disagree.

[Jeronimo]

Horse value is in the "hot and cold spot".
Making it cheaper is bad,... but making it more expensive is bad as well (from my point of view).

I agree with Krom's comment.
2 farms + 1 stable, or 3 woodcutters + 1 market (based in horse = 6 trunks).
And think in the large space wasted because of 3 woodcutters forest.

I disagree with some comments I have read respect horses.
Early exploration is not decisive, it only helps to anticipate a big rush right after PT ends, and probably destroy towers blueprints from a player who builds defenses late.
Besides those 2 functions the rest of game is about armies and tactical decisions.

Some people is arguing hard for making tree trunks practically useless at market, not considering the really sucky base it already means choosing this trading path.

[Jeronimo]

1st: This topic should be moved to Feedback/discussion because is good to have this thread apart to focus in propositions or analyzing Horses in general across the many versions of KaM Remake.

2nd: Current production of horses is 4 corn -> 1 horse.
My suggestion is to decrease them to 3 corn -> 1 horse.

The reason is the comeback of the lancers/pikemen in a tactical way, not seen yet keeping 4 corn x 1 horse.
I'm not the only one who prefers 4 corn for 1 pig -> 2 leather/3 sausages.

1 horse means a slight increase in 1 soldier's speed and a "miserable" +1 hp which sometimes doesn't even serve (because get trapped in waves of infantry/rain of arrows). All in all, at 4 corn... 1 pig is obviously better (leather soldiers + good food).

Breeder working rate can be the same, I just think that 3 corn by horse is the solution (basing on the REAL benefits to the civilization). Btw, just another curiosity is the expensive Stable cost... 5 stone/6 timber... sadly not worth... yet

[dicsoupcan]

1st: This topic should be moved to Feedback/discussion because is good to have this thread apart to focus in propositions or analyzing Horses in general across the many versions of KaM Remake.

2nd: Current production of horses is 4 corn -> 1 horse.
My suggestion is to decrease them to 3 corn -> 1 horse.

The reason is the comeback of the lancers/pikemen in a tactical way, not seen yet keeping 4 corn x 1 horse.
I'm not the only one who prefers 4 corn for 1 pig -> 2 leather/3 sausages.

1 horse means a slight increase in 1 soldier's speed and a "miserable" +1 hp which sometimes doesn't even serve (because get trapped in waves of infantry/rain of arrows). All in all, at 4 corn... 1 pig is obviously better (leather soldiers + good food).

Breeder working rate can be the same, I just think that 3 corn by horse is the solution (basing on the REAL benefits to the civilization). Btw, just another curiosity is the expensive Stable cost... 5 stone/6 timber... sadly not worth... yet

the 1st point is up to debate( do not debate too much though) since this is already a seperate topic.

the 2nd suggestion is in my opnion also up for a debate, since i think that mounted units are flexible since a few of them can be deadly in the right hands, but on the other side not many are produced due to their (in my opinion) justified costs and many ranged units +some melee units can easily kill them. Yes pikemen and especially lansers are hardly used, but mounted units are not used as often aswell.

[Ben]

...and a "miserable" +1 hp which sometimes doesn't even serve (because get trapped in waves of infantry/rain of arrows).

Umm, excuse me? This "miserable" 1hp puts knights at the strongest in the game. It makes a huge difference. That's why knights counter everything except for pikemen.
I agree that horses are expensive, but I don't support decreasing their costs. The reasons you presented were not strong enough for such a drastic change.

Making swine-farms is desirable in many situations, but "all-iron" rush tactics don't need them. Also, with enough farms, you can easily spare corn for a stable.

[Jeronimo]

[quote="dicsoupcan"Yes pikemen and especially lansers are hardly used, but mounted units are not used as often aswell.[/quote]

If there are more horses, then there will be more lances/pikes as well.

Umm, excuse me? This "miserable" 1hp puts knights at the strongest in the game. It makes a huge difference. That's why knights counter everything except for pikemen.
I agree that horses are expensive, but I don't support decreasing their costs. The reasons you presented were not strong enough for such a drastic change.

Knights can be beaten by good macro of Lancers or Swordmen as well (not just Pikemen).
Scout doesn't represent a real "threat"... I saw some replays where Mulberry trains some Scouts but... nothing is possible to achieve with such low quantities of horses. Foot troops are replaced fast, but horses produced very slowly.

Ben if you say horses are expensive but you don't prefer decreasing cost, then the other option is to increase Horseman performance (some stat or whatever), and I'm personally against that solution... to solve "lack of horses ingame".

Note that this change is "not so drastic" as you affirm, since you have to consider the simple work of 1 early Stable during PT... for example instead of 10 horses, you will have 13 (40 corn invested).

Well guys... 3 corn x 1 horse, ideal offer .

PD: It would have been really drastic suggesting [2 corn x 1 horse], a true tragedy of 20 horses for 40 corn, but [3 x 1] formula somehow seduces me, because you get 13 horses instead of 10 [4 x 1].

[Ben]

Scout doesn't represent a real "threat"... I saw some replays where Mulberry trains some Scouts but... nothing is possible to achieve with such low quantities of horses. Foot troops are replaced fast, but horses produced very slowly.

I agree that Scouts are pathetic and a waste of corn, despite Mully's thoughts otherwise.

Knights can be beaten by good macro of Lancers or Swordmen as well (not just Pikemen).

Pikemen and sword-fighters can be beaten by good micro of knights (not just lancers and axe-fighters).

[Da Revolution]

If you change the costs of the horses everyone will go for knights only. Make two stables which work 100% and you'll get about 30-40 knights with your change? This will replace almost all other melee units, but yes maybe people make more pikes then...but axefighters for example are useless then.

[The Dark Lord]

In my humble opinion, mounted units are the most powerful late in the game, when the biggest armies have been diminished. Even scouts can be useful at that time.

[Mixons]

I think change cost horses to 3 corn->1 horse is totally unnecessary. Now when you go for horses, after pt you can have 10-18 horses (with one stable) and if you will use them with good micro (like flanking with 2 or more groups), they can do amazing job. When horses will be cheaper, you can use them as the main army, and then horses will be too strong(even pikemen cant counter them when knights will have support from xbows) and remember about change with farms in next release.

[pawel95]

No I havent any idea about a new market value, i think it´s good now. I only wanted ask if the old idea (from Lewin) is still active to increase the stable speed little bit(same corn,but faster feeding) so you would just have more horses.

Now when you go for horses, after pt you can have 10-18 horses (with one stable)

Well the problem about that is that you can´t make horses too early,because you will have nice amount of horses than, but your leather army will be really small, comparing with other pro players with leather/iron only!
And when you really want to have 18 horses with one stable, you just must build the stables after 20-30 min,right?!