Mounted Archer

[mongolian]

http://www.pontifex2.com/images/Mounted_Archer.JPG" border="0">

Ok for $150, they are too powerful.  2x attacks, 1 armor.  how are you supposed to kill these things. A rider with 2x attacks can't even kill it and nothing else can get in range.

Mounted Horseback changes
A) It costs $200 (currently $150)
B) Remove the 1 armor
C) Remove 1 power.

I really don't want to see C happen..but something is needed.

[Nazoric]

Are you suggesting that all

A) B) and C) happen?  or just A) or B) or C)?

I don't know how Josiah or Gabe feels about this unit, I personally haven't had too many problems with it.

-1 armor might be a good change.  

I don't know if anything will end up happening to this unit though. I will let you know if I find out.

[NozeM]

I guess you mean the Mounted Archer, so I change the Topic title and put the picture of it.

I disagree your opinion, I think it looks good. Almost any unit can kill it.

Maybe the affinity with a Knight isn't so good. Knight can only 3 range move and 1 range attack, so it makes the Archer a little bit usable.

[mongolian]

Couple points here.  A $150 mounted archer is much better for your buck then a $200 knight.  Sure you can ague there are advantages a knight has... but the mounted archer is the ONLY less then $500 unit that can attack 6 spots away, not to mention 2x attacks.  If it had 1 attack, I would totally fine with it reach 6 spaces for $150 with even +1 power..but this isnt the case.

I'm sorry but there is just no sane way to defend against this unit... if you are trying to defend 1 unit it can simply pick off another unit with a range of 6.  2 attacks with 6 range is NOT JUSTIFIED.  sorry.

[garcia1000]

I think that it's okay, because if you go for the 6 range, you'll have to move 3 squares forward. The problem is more that the knight isn't worth 200, I think.

In many situations, the archer is better than the mounted archer (sometimes mounted archer is better though)

[Nazoric]

(garcia1000 @ Nov. 02 2008,10:25)

QUOTE

I think that it's okay, because if you go for the 6 range, you'll have to move 3 squares forward. The problem is more that the knight isn't worth 200, I think.

In many situations, the archer is better than the mounted archer (sometimes mounted archer is better though)

I agree, the knight isn't worth 200 in my book. http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

[mongolian]

All i'm asking is for the mounted archer to not have 1 armor... that would really make the unit what it's worth.  As it is.. range of 6 is not cool http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('>

[garcia1000]

I think 0 armor would be fine. Same stats as Archer but different movement.

[roxo]

the archer can shoot anywhere within 4, the mounted archer can't. the mounted archer is a bowman with the move 3. the bowman has 1 armor i think the mounted archer should as well. and u can't compare things to knights.... knight are as worthless as it gets for 200.

[Kran]

The mounted archers cant move anywhere within 3. Cant attack anywhere within 3. Can only move and attack 3 range, what cause them to be more limited in amount of spaces they can hit as far the target is.
The mounted archer is perfect, just need some calculation to drible the range and you can be range 5 of the archer safely.